Talk:TIE/LN starfighter

Same thing as my comments about the TIE bomber. Where did you get your max atmospheric speed and acceleration numbers from? JimRaynor55 04:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The panels are radiators
The panels radiate the heat generated by the reactor.

—

— Ŭalabio 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-

Quote
I'd like to use a bit from I, Jedi as the leading quote on this article, but I don't know if it can be considered "in-universe." It's not dialogue, but since I, Jedi is supposed to be written in first person, I think it can be argued that the entire text of the book is quotable as the words of Corran Horn. And I'd really like to put this at the top:

"Sienar Systems' basic TIE fighter–a commodity which, after hydrogen and stupidity, was the most plentiful in the galaxy."

- Corran Horn

Can we do that? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:35, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I'll add it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Schematic Anatomy"
Where does this "schematic anatomy" (can "anatomy" even be applied to ships?) come from? JimRaynor55 22:58, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Wars: X-wing. The original DOS version, I think. Incidentally, I had forgotten that X-Wing labeled the "solar panels" as "supplemental laser power." Meaning that even if they're solar panels and not radiators, they're not the primary power source. &lt;Nelson Muntz&gt;HA-ha!&lt;/Nelson Muntz&gt; &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:28, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually for removing them altogether. Animations really don't belong on articles. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:30, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * A Picture says more than hundred words, an animated picture is even better. I see no sense in removing it, as it contains informations. If it would be only to let the article look better I would also want to remove it, but its not the case. --Dark Scipio 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode II Appearance.
Source/image would be nice. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When did the TIE Fighter enter service?
Is the TIE Fighter a 1 or 0 B.B.Y. starfighter or older?
 * It's older than that, definitely. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But how much? I thought I read something about it coming out "within weeks of the New Order". Maybe it was the Databank... *looks* Guess not. Oh well. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's said, but I'm positive it's older than 1 BBY. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ejection seat
"Contrary to popular belief, the ships did possess ejection seats, but the nature of space warfare often resulted in pilots riding their craft down to a swift end rather than ejecting and risking slow death by heat loss and oxygen starvation." I don't think this is true. Empire: Darklighter shows Biggs and fellow rebels ejecting from their TIE's on purpose. Granted, not a likely occurrence but it is proof it exists. Also, it makes total sense that they could do that. They aren't long range vehicles so another ship could easily pick them up or they could use a blaster to continue the fight while adrift. Unless someone has a direct source that states they do not have ejector seats that comment needs to be removed. --DannyBoy7783 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that came from a good source, but I'm not positive. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:54, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
 * Well, it better be damn good. The comic clearly shows an ejection seat. The editor's note the helmets aren't canon but they never say anything else isn't. --DannyBoy7783 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. I am such a tard. I read "did possess" as "didn't possess". Please disregard this entire section... --DannyBoy7783 19:39, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
 * No problem. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:45, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Name
Shouldn't this be at TIE/ln starfighter? That trend has been started with some of the other TIE models, and since "TIE fighter" is more of a nickname than anything else, it shouldn't be designated as such - Kwenn 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, we should also move the others to their proper designations. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem I see on this one is that the TIE Fighter and the TIE/ln Fighter are two separate but nearly identical varieties of the baseline TIE ("/ln" has a blueish hull like the later TIEs, no "/ln" has a grey hull). It's difficult to know which of the two any given nonspecific "TIE Fighter" reference is intended to be, so the current page title is probably the most appropriate. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What source says that the TIE/ln has a blueish hull, but that the previous models didn't? Saxton claims this in the SWTC, but I don't know where he got that from. JimRaynor55 01:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I'm not sure. The Star Wars Sourcebook is the earliest source I can find, and it doesn't differentiate between the hull colors (it seems to imply that the ANH fighters are the same as the ESB ones). And Solo Command did mention "several improvements in Sienar TIE fighter hulls." Maybe they are all TIE/ln's. Saxton's excessive interpretation of facts and lack of attribution are really getting on my nerves lately. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hull color made one a "/ln" and the other one not. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I thought that there was the T.I.E. and that was what Sienar had the engines for in that HNN report, but by ANH at the latest, everything was the TIE/In.-- The Erl of the  talk  What I do 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, should this be at TIE/ln fighter or not? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This comes from the fact that in the first film, the models used couldn't be blue because of the bluescreen effect. In subsequent films, they added more and more blue coloring to the models in post-production. The other difference I can remember, is that the white TIE fighters had no windows on top of the cockpit, which the grey/blue TIE/ln had. VT-16 19:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that the fighters in both ANH and TESB both had windows on top of the cockpits. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Since no official source differentiates the colors, both are the same model. So, again, should this be moved to TIE/ln starfighter? - Kwenn 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we use TIE/ln fighter instead? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? The correct name is TIE/ln starfighter. "Fighter" is just an abbreviated form of "starfighter", just like "astro-droid" is a colloquism of "astromech droid" - Kwenn 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just that we're going to move a lot of articles (such as TIE Interceptor to TIE/I fighter or starfighter), and we already have TIE/gt fighter and so on. I thought it would just save us some time. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of moving them is so that we have them at the correct name - Kwenn 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, then. If you need any help moving articles, let me know. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Started - Kwenn 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do the TIE/I starfighter. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What could ln stand for? Didn't some of their names resemble or stand for something, like /I for interceptor? -Aiddat 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "ln" stands for "line", hence "TIE line starfighter". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Luke's quote

 * Doesn't Luke say "They're coming in too fast", not "They're too fast" during the Falcon's escape from the Death Star? - Finlayson 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just popped the DVD into my computer to check, and he does indeed say "they're coming in too fast." But this page doesn't need another quote anyway. Darth Culator 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea. I wasn't suggesting adding it.. - Finlayson 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kwenn and I told the user it wasn't an actual quote, but he didn't listen... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Hatch
I'm just wondering. I know TIEs have no life support systems, and I seen the toy TIE Advance x 1. So I have 1 question. Just as there's glass in the front view window of the TIE Fighter, is there any glass on the top veiw windows of the hatch, or is it completly open to the open space? Double D 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's open to space. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so. . . If a TIE Fighter was on a planet (Lets say Coruscant) and the pilot chooses to leave the atmosphere, the air won't get vacuum-sucked out of the lined-gaps in the top hatch? (I'm asking just to be 100% sure) Double D 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think those lines in the hatch are open to space. Plus, if the pilot was in his uniform and in Coruscant's atmosphere, he could easily enter space. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So how came the TIE suits are fully sealed with self-atmospere converters? Rebel pilots don't wear all the when fling an X-Wings. Double D 14:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because X-wings have life-support systems while TIEs don't. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I'm just thinking, if the view windows has a glass covering in the gaps of the top hatch, why do the suits need to be fully sealed? Why not partially sealed? Y can't they take off the helmets just for a min to prevent helmet hair? Double D 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there's no life-support system onboard TIEs. In the first few minutes after takeoff, they'll still be a little bit of atmosphere, but that would eventually drain out, leaving no air. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the TIEs have no CO2-O2 fitter? Double D 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would basically be a life-support systems, so you are correct. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)