This is the talk page for the article "RZ-1 A-wing interceptor/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

This talk page has archives.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2007 Good article nomination Failure
July 14, 2007 Good article
Current status: Failed good article nominee

Images Edit

  • Based on comments on Wookieepedia:Good articles, I hid image File:Red Squadron A-Wing2.JPG, because it was similar to Infobox image. I moved the other images around to better match text, like the exploded type view image showing the engines. It'd help to add a couple words to the captions so they are less alike. I can't only think of "An A-wing, view from above." type thing. -Fnlayson 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Another image related issue: Isn't the pictured helmet a Y-wing pilot helmet? I don't recall any of the A-wing pilots wearing anything that covered their chin like that.Semith 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think "Red 2" was wearing that kind of a helmet. When Wedge says, "Good shot, Red 2," that pilot appeared to be flying an A-wing. RushW 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Negative on that, check the movies again. Before the battle, Grey leader Horton_Salm reports in wearing this style helmet. Unlike all the others, he report in with a sideview shot, you can clearly see the cockpit is a Y-wing cockpit. Later, another pilot Gray_Four wearing the same style helmet but with different decals screams "I'm hit" followed an external shot of TIEs shooting a Y-wing that crashes into a Star Destroyer. Both wear this helmet and both are clearly in Y-wings. All the other A-wing pilots wear a different helmet that doesn't cover the mouth and chin area. Compare the image to Arvel Crynyd. See the difference in shape and design? Semith 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodonna's involvement Edit

The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook describes Jan Dodonna's involvement in the design of the A-wing and clearly indicates that his inspiration came from studying the Battle of Yavin. This article also presents this information. According to other canon sources (such as Stackpole's books), Dodonna was captured shortly after Yavin and imprisoned. I have recently discovered that pre-Yavin references to the A-wing have been retconned to be R-22 Spearheads, but how does one explain the discrepancy regarding Dodonna's involvement in the A-wing design? He could not have developed the fighter while in Imperial captivity. RushW 01:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps his ideas were passed on to Walex Blissex, who used his shipbuilding skill to further refine them into the RZ-1. Also, if I recall correctly, Marvel sources indicate that the Rebels held out on Yavin 4 for some time - something on the order of a year - until the Empire could produce a ship powerful enough to crack the planetary shields (the Executor). - Brynn Alastayr 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The departure from Yavin occurred a full six months after the destruction of the Death Star (though the reasons had more to do with Imperial grandstanding and propaganda than the practical matter of cracking the planetary shields). That's plenty of time for Dodonna to analyze the battle and at least come up with a preliminary design for the upgrade, if not the final design. jSarek 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Query Edit

What exactly is meant by "the fleet was able to summon only one full unit for the Battle of Endor". Is that literally 1 unit (contradicted by RoTJ), 1 squadron (as evidenced by RoTJ), or 1 wing (with lots off-camera)? I'm guessing the author means 1 wing, but s/he should say that... Delta source 07:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Missile load Edit

I get the feeling someone has to have discussed this somewhere before, but anyway....the article says the A-wing carries 6 concussion missiles. However, Rogue Squadron gives the A-wing 8 missiles, while its sequels allocate twenty. X-wing Alliance gives the A-wing 10 missiles, but also allows you to switch it out for 8 proton torpedoes or some other quantity of other ordinance. In any case, there's been zero consistency among the sources as to what exactly the A-wing can carry, so is there a reason why we're going with one source over any others? Lalala la 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shielding Edit

The 50 SBD (Same as X-wings whose SBD is seen in the X-wing book series, as I understand?) seems to be from the TIE Fighter games, which could be taken as game mechanics. Generally established the A-wings have notably lower-powered shields. From the New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels: "In order to achieve the A-wing's remarkable speed, Blissex discarded anything that would draw energy away from the Engines. As a result, the A-wing has weak armor plating and only a very small shield generator." As game mechanics are a lower canon than other EU, maybe we should remove mention of SBDs, unless there's another source for A-wings and 50 SBDs that I can't find? --Nex Terren 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speed? Edit

Isn't the speed quoted here another WEG/Totally Games-ism? As far as I'm aware the ILM speed chart puts the A-wing at 150MGLT. I imagine the 120 figure could be considered to cover the R-22, since the first time this figure appears is in the original X-Wing game, where the "A-Wing" is supposed to be the R-22 by retcon.


-- 09:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)TheGrunch

  • Another strange thing about this is that, currently, the article says it was fastest next to the TIE Interceptor, yet the A-wing has 120 MGLT, which makes it faster than the the 110 MGLT of the TIE Interceptor. There is a quote saying it could rival a TIE Interceptor in speed, which makes two things against the slower than Interceptor part, looks like it needs an edit.Nebulon B freak 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Connection to the Alpha/Delta/Eta fighter designsEdit

  • I was just curious what the source of the fact is? Is it mentioned in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels? I just wished to know in order to verify what I read in the article and confirm it is canon. Maphisto86 07:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is, although half that book's details are wrong. Still, Walex Blissex worked on that line and on this fighter, so there's a connection right there: A shared designer. ZeldaTheSwordsman 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Edit

Should we make a disambiguation page for the 2 fighters at the top of the page?Lieutenant J.J 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Lieutenant J.J


In an old archive book I swear I saw a green A-wing. Could this have been a green squadron A-wing or were all the models changed to red for the final cut? User:1705jallen

  • As far as I recall, yes, the only A-wings to be colored green were Green Squadron from RotJ. Not sure if the color was changed on purpose. KellTainer 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then the toy Green Leader was wrongly coloured red. I knew it. User:1705jallen
      • Yeah again though, i dunno for certain. I did look up a-wing images after looking here and I did see green leader toys colored red. If someone who has the star wars encyclpedia could come in here and let us know that would be great.KellTainer 10:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Size Edit

9.6 meters!? Do you mean to tell me that this thing is like... 26 feet long? That's insane...

The actual size is about 4 Meters. 12 feet. There are many -many- ways to figure this out. This thing is no bigger than a Volkswagen Cabrio! Well, okay. Maybe a bit wider, and just a LITTLE longer...

But it simply can not be 20 feet long. It just ain't that big. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

That's impossible. It's closer to 9 feet than it is 9 meters.

That's just impossible. There are many sources that tell these two comparatively minimal sources NO. I think you guys have a problem, and your problem is that you don't take the most important source first.


Most important source: Movie, first appearance.

Least important source: Novel or strategy guide that has mistakes anyways. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Sorry, the length is already established by LucasArts. --Xd1358 Talk 10:20, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the length is established by the movie. Whatever garbage LucasArts put in the books contradicts the movie. Since the movies constitute the highest level of canon, the books are wrong and the erroneous figures should be removed. Why do you people insist on retaining incorrect, non-canon information when so many people have objected against it? This is a Wiki!

12seraph 04:40, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

There is no way that the a-wing is 9.6 meters long. That would mean that the laser cannon - which is roughly one third of the overall length - were 3 meters (10 feet) long. Look at the picture, specifically the size of the pilot's head. If he were to get out of the cockpit and lay flat on the top of the ship, he would be longer than the cannon. Which means, unless the pilot is more than 3 meters (10 feet) tall, the overall length of the ship should be no longer than 6 meters, since the average man is less than 2 meters. ...It's science...

Maybe normal sized persons magically resize into 3-4meter tall creatures when they enter an A-wing? On serious note, the A-wing is clearly only about the size of a car. Somehow the 9,6m figure slipped in somewhere. Frankly, I'm suprised that with the release of the complete cross-section book, in which the A-wing is featured, the size wasn't corrected (as did happen with the Executor for example). Makes me wonder though, how correct are the sizes for other craft, the B-wing for example.

  • He's got a point. The 9.6m length contradicts what you see in the films.

12seraph 23:36, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Other variants Edit

What happened to the paragraph on the Rz-Mark3E A-wing? Was the information determined to be non-canon or something? Devlin Dewe 18:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Studio model info Edit

The Star Wars Technical Journal gives the length of the A-wing studio model as 60cm and states that the pilot used in the model was 1/8. The non-canon 4.8m theory is already given in the article, so I felt it would be appropriate (and useful) to let people know where that comes from. Actually, there's quite a bit of information on the studio models from canon sources (Chronicles, etc.) so it seems like this Wiki should include it whenever possible so long as it isn't explicitly stated that they contradict canon information. 12seraph 00:20, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

  • Although highly informative, The Star Wars Technical Journal is not the definitive source of canon and continuity. It has errors in some of the information printed, as a matter of fact. Additionally, studio models are also not as reliable sources as some references in novels/games/etc., as many of them varied in scale and, occasionally, design. The most recent and the most repeated references by Lucas Licensing are what is to be considered canon. GethralkinHyperwave 09:48, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • While there do exist inconsistencies between them, shouldn't studio models as a whole exist on a higher level of canon than novels/games/etc. because they appeared in the films? If any inconsistencies are being disputed, it should be between the models only, never between the models and representations in secondary sources (many of which are derived from the EGVV, which itself contradicts the films). 12seraph 23:45, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. The studio production models often contradict each other as well. Besides, Lucas Licensing do not always make use of studio model scaled measurements when officially stating lengths in the archives. GethralkinHyperwave 16:40, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
        • Damned crimestop. 12seraph 16:11, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Firepower Edit

'The weapons carried on-board, including advanced concussion missiles, gave the craft the power to engage larger Imperial targets[16] up to and including Imperial Star Destroyers.[15]'

This statement is based off of video game mechanics and two Nintendo strategy guides for the same game. Unless there's outside canon that A-Wings were capable of threatening ships of the line, I'd peg this sentence as contrary to the established canon (and totally contrary to most of the information presented in the article). Vote to remove? 01:47, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

  • You've never heard of the A-wing Slash? Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 02:13, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • Used against convoys and not effective enough to turn the Battle of Qat Chrystac. The sources used behind the statement are for utilizing an A-Wing to solo up to two Imperial Star Destroyers at once. A handful of laser blasts to the 'shield generators' and bridge and the whole starship would spin out of control and be totally disabled. It's one thing to steer a fighter into an unshielded bridge, it's quite another to solo a star destroyer built to trade blows with ships with dozens of turbolaser batteries. Considering the video game source totally contradicts higher levels of canon, is there any other citation to back up the original statement or do the faulty sources render it apocryphal? 10:11, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • It is really your opinion that "video games totally contradicts higher levels of canon". They are perfectly valid sources of information, and in the original Expanded Universe, they stood on the same level as everything else (C-Canon) according to Lucasfilm. Now, as for the weapons. A-wings are known to carry concussion missiles. Those same missiles are shown in the Battle of Endor to be armor-piercing. So yes, A-wings are a threat to capital ships. I'm sorry if I come off to strongly, I just want to clear this up. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 14:05, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • No offense taken, you put out good points on the matter. I accept that there are many aspects of video game canon that have made it into official lore; the TIE Defender being a wonderful addition as well as characters like Kyle Katarn and HK-47. But there are aspects of the gameplay that, to preserve the sense of the player being the hero or due to limitations of hardware or software, take artistic license with the canon.

For example, I can easily take out an Imperial Star Destroyer in an A-Wing in the X-Wing flight simulator game. The mechanics of the game limit the number of weapons on the Star Destroyer allowing me to weave in between the blasts taking only a few hits. The power of the turbolaser batteries is equal to that of the lasers of a Tie Fighter, so any damage I take to my shields is minimal. I can break contact with the ISD to recharge my shields, while the starship has no ability to recharge theirs. It is simply a matter of time pecking away at the hull before it starts to list over and explode.

Similarly, in Rogue Leader, the A-Wing can destroy 3 ISDs over the course of the game if chosen by the player. This can be done utilizing only lasers, and involves destroying structures that have been canonically determined to be the visible bulge of the reactor. No concussion missiles are required to achieve this feat. On top of all this, you can literally destroy 2 capital ships with a lone fighter more rapidly than multiple flights of Tie/sa bombers could destroy the Redemption utilizing warheads. This means that the game makes the A-Wing (or even a Tie Fighter since that is a possible craft to fly during the mission) heads and shoulders above a dedicated starship destroyer in terms of destroying starships.

The statement in question utilizes citations that are directly drawing off this gameplay mechanic. This means that the statement is based off of the game's bias in terms of the fighter's power. When using citations, the supported statement must be taken as being in line with the evidence being used to bolster it. If there were other better sources capable of replacing the strategy guides, I would admit that the statement would be valid. Without those, the statement is inferring that a single A-Wing pilot (or TIE Fighter pilot or Naboo starfighter pilot etc.) could singlehandedly cut a swath through Imperial capital ships which begs the question as to why the Rebels weren't devastating the Imperial fleet due to the fact that they had at least hundreds of said fighters. 01:01, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

The Crash into the Executor, is there any proof that it was a ramming tactic like the article says or was it an actual crash. I find it hard to believe it was a deliberate act to ram the bridge of the Executor.````

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.