Contents 1 Empire at war 2 Acceleration 3 Size 4 Ship name 5 Category 6 Hyperdrive 7 Axial Blindspot 8 Original design 9 First Launched? 10 Decks? 11 Lowercase "corvette" 12 First ID 13 Known Ships? 14 Blind spot against Devastator 15 More to Say? 16 Tantive IV? 17 amount of turrets 18 Cargo capacity Varies, depends on mission and modular configuration 19 Quote from Behind the Magic 20 Other variants 21 Turrets on escape pods? 22 Ventral tower

Empire at warEdit

It says at the end that star destroyers in empire at war have 4 turrets. They have four areas were turrets are placed and each of these has 10 turrets. The four large dual-weapons turrets on each side of the tower structure are called ion cannons in the game - Thats way more than four turrets.

AccelerationEdit

Should stuff from the games like MGLT be allowed in articles? Vehicles in space shouldn't have a set top speed, just a top acceleration rate (as the two latest ICS books show). 22 MGLT (or even 100 MGLT) is also ridiculously slow. It should be regarded as a non-Canon game mechanic, IMO. JimRaynor55 03:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• MGLT was first used by ILM to determine relative speeds of starfighters, although its meaning is unclear.[1] Curtis Saxton has tried to figure it out [2] and produced some interesting results. Unfortunately, the MGLT rating is supported by WEG and computer games. I think that the WookieeProject Starships will eventually determine if we want to keep those types of ratings, or simply offer a relative statement ("as far as a TIE Interceptor" or "Slower than a Y-wing". --SparqMan 04:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As MGLT is a behind the scenes measurement, I don't think it has any place within IU articles.--Eion 11:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Was MGLT used in the X-Wing novels by Michael A. Stackpole? I can't remember, but I do know he was a fan of the X-wing computer game series. -- Falmarin 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It is somehow a function of G, as the new incredible cross-section books suggest. I estimate that 30G equate 1 MGLT. --Gen.d 07:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SizeEdit

Anyone else notice that the Tantive IV in ROTS looked squatter and with a large engine bay? --SparqMan 14:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I believe this is because the designers played around with the design (sigh) and used an image from WEG books or something. Instead of, you know, looking at the actual films. In-universe explanation could be that it was an earlier model, which was later refitted to match later models seen in ANH and ROTJ.VT-16 11:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem at all unlikely that in 20 years a ship that started out as a luxory yacht for a senator, and would eventually be used as a covert counsular ship for a Rebel agent would go through at least one major refit.--Eion 11:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is probably one area where it may be useful to "suspend" belief, and just pretend it looks the same...Darn, WEG, you've done it again! :) QuentinGeorge 11:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      • This isn't a production error. GL has the original model in his barn, I don't think he forgot what it looked like. He meant for it to look different. We have to reason with that. We can't just throw out a concious creative choice because it makes our lives hard. This is now wire coming out of Ben Kenobi's lightsaber.--Eion 11:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree, this should be adressed in the article itself. Something about refitting/upgrading the Tantive IV on Bail´s behalf (which is actually mentioned in the ROTS VD). And the fact that CR90s can change certain modules to fit different missions. VT-16 22:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • As long as it uses whatever source material can go with that. No reason to conjecturally retcon it for him. The Tantive IV bit should probably go in its article. --SparqMan 23:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sure, it must be nice to be able to cover up all of your gaffs with "creative license" =) While we're at it, what was the point of using CGI Clone troopers in close up shots when an actor would have been cheaper, easier and not move like an animatronic robot? --SparqMan 13:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Because it´s easier and quicker to make a CG character stand in front of a CG background than a RL character. Time and money are the considerations here, so that´s what they decided to go with. VT-16 22:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know how accurate of a statement the first part is.--SparqMan 23:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You don´t think integrating a live actor with a CG background is more difficult than doing it with CG ones? Not to mention multiplying them and then integrating each and every one of these actors again. They did it with the wookiees, but they only had a few scenes. The clones appear in much of AOTC and ROTS, and if they deemed the model good enough, they must have decided to use them in faraway and close shots, rather than making a suit for close-ups and integrating it with the digital surroundings. VT-16 23:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ship name Edit

"Corellian Corvette" seems to be a slang term for the ships, the equivalent of calling a Ford F-series an American Truck -- as CEC was the major Corellian manufacturer of starships. CR90 Corvette should probably be the name of this ship. --SparqMan 21:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Could probably chop off hte Corellian and still be fine. I just don't think a bunch of alphanumeric article names are all that interesting.--Eion 21:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The need for descriptives was already decided, just curious if "Corellian" is.
  • It certainly lets people know that this is the 'Corellian Corvette' they're used to hearing about. – Aidje _talk 23:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The Image helps with that too, but even then a simple sentence in the article could cover it as well. This is no reason to keep an inaccurate title.--Eion 00:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well in all fairness, the title is not canonically inaccurate. Many sources refer to it as such, but been given the vessel name, it seems to make sense to title it with what CEC labeled it, rather than its colloquial name. --SparqMan 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader mentions a Tantive-class corvette (p112, comparing the size of a Corellian freighter to a Tantive-class corvette). Since Tantive IV was named after diplomats from that planet, 'Tantive' doesn't have much to do with the CR90 model. Could this just be a mistake, a colloquislism, or perhaps a completely different ship class? - Kwenn 21:59, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's probably a mistake, but a page could always be made. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:32, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Category Edit

No need to have this in the RA, NR and GE categories. It was a common enough ship class that I think we can keep it under "Capital ship classes" and leave the other categories for fleet-specific designs. --SparqMan 23:45, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• I'll second that. – Aidje _talk 03:05, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hyperdrive Edit

The Databank specifically refers to CR90 corvettes as having fast hyperdrives [3]. Class 4 is a very slow hyperdrive. 68.47.234.131 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the Databank has gotten a couple of things wrong before, so just ignore it on this subject. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Axial Blindspot Edit

The portion of the article that suggests that the blindspot is ignored is inaccurate. The Devastator is a large enough ship that it would extend above and probably below the blindspot and thus still be within reach of the turrets. Add to that the command tower is taller still and the Tantive IV would have no problem hitting the star destroyer. If there had been a greater distance between the two ships, it might have stayed in the blindspot but since the star destroyer was activly trying to close and capture the corvette it presented itself as a target albeit a very difficult one to damage.

• The Devastator would have been well above the Tantive IV, if you look at the capture scene its espcially obvious, its prefectly feasible that the blind spot does exist and the Tantive IV could still hit the Devastator, just look at the ship, it must have a blind spot!! unless it can shoot through its own engine block. Basically I'm agreeing with you :-D
  • Well, the distance between Devastator and Tantive IV is important in the issue. Had Devastator been on top of Tantive IV from the beginning, Tantive IV might have been able to score a shot or two and get away. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Original designEdit

Are there any pictures of the original "Blockade Runner" design, the one that was discared when the original Millennium Falcon concept was transferred over to be the Tantive IV? I think I've seen one that bore a resemblance to the Corellian Star Shuttle, but I'm not sure about that or if it was actually a real Lucasfilm image. Red XIV 03:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, there are some in an Insider issue. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 11:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First Launched? Edit

What is the estimate when the first CR90 Corvette came off the CEC assembly line?

• Well, I'd say they were made after the YT-1300's, which were made c. 60 BBY (taken from Millennium Falcon), but when exactly, I have no clue. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• It seems like they came after the Counsular-class Space Cruiser. I think it is most likely they were produced for the Clone Wars.
  • No, I don't think so. They were probably made shortly after the Consular-class, but they weren't made for the Clone Wars. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • They certainly existed prior to the CW, there's a comic dealing with the Separatist crisis that had a CR90 crew going AWOL. VT-16 11:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Scarlet Thranta, wasn't it? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the one. VT-16 10:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Thought so. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Decks? Edit

How many decks total does the Corellian Corvette have?

• I don't think anyone knows. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• SW:ICS shows two in the "head" section, three in the main body (top floor is Leia's suite) and one in the corridor leading to the rear air lock. VT-16 10:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase "corvette" Edit

With the exception of "Star Destroyer" (and related ship types), we have applied the stylistic norm of using a lowercase ship type (destroyer, cruiser, corvette)—with the exception of the CR90. I imagine the resistance will be stiff given the importance of his ship type, but can we consider moving this to CR90 corvette? --SparqMan 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's lowercase on the OS, I'm fine with that. :) VT-16 06:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with a lowercase "c" in corvette, but what about the word "Corellian"? Isn't that a part of its official name? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • They don't have "Mon Calamari" written out as part of the MC-series names. "MC" stands for it, but that's it. Would be same here, with "CR" standing for "Corellian", or "GR" for "Gallofree". Otherwise, we'd have "MC90 Mon Calamari Star Cruiser", or "GR-75 Gallofree medium transport". VT-16 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe "Corellian corvette" is the equivalent of saying "American sportscar" when refering to a Mustang. This particular model was likely so ubiquitous that instead of calling it the CR90, it became known as the Corellian corvette because it was unlikely thay a spacer was refering to any other ship type. --SparqMan 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I guess it's CR90 corvette, then. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep "Corellian corvette' in the article somewhere, since that's another common slang name. -Finlayson 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The first sentence would be like this: The CR90 corvette, also known as the Corellian corvette, blockade runner, or Rebel blockade runner,... But do we need "Rebel blockade runner" if we already have "blockade runner"? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we could even leave "blockade runner" out of the intro sent and then place it in a secondary sent. after explaining its popularity amongst the Rebel Alliance and smugglers. --SparqMan 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That could work. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yea. The 3rd paragraph describes it's use by the Rebels and others for blockade running. -Finlayson 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I believe it's safe to move the article now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First ID Edit

I'm trying to dig up the CR90's first identification (first as the Corellian corvette and second as the CR90). Any help? --SparqMan 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wasn't it called "Corellian corvette" in the Episode IV novelization? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good first option. I'm fairly confident that it was named that in early ANH merchandise too, but would it be inaccurate to tag ANH as the first ID? --SparqMan 20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that it would be inaccurate. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Han Solo mentioned "Corellian corvettes" in Mos Eisley in ANH when Luke and Ben first meet him, I believe. -Finlayson 20:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, he said "...I'm talking about the big Corellian ships" or something like that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yea, that it. Don't know then.. -Finlayson
      • It was a good try, anyway. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure. I beleive that's as close as it got to being mentioned in the OT movies. -Finlayson 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Is it me, or did someone say "CR90" in the space portion of the Battle of Endor in Episode VI? I was watching it the other day, and I thought I heard it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Known Ships? Edit

Anyone want to add a known ships section? I think ships like the Tantive IV, Razor, and Eridain could be put in there.

• I think we should add one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Try Category:CR90 Corellian Corvettes instead. --SparqMan 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Then that should be done for every ship class article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's done where there we have enough to justify the category. For a class like the CR90 where we know dozens of ships, it makes sense. For a ship like the Bothan assault cruiser, it probably doesn't. --SparqMan 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, okay. Thanks. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • ships of the line would be a nice additionDerekproxy

Blind spot against Devastator Edit

I have a complaint about this paragraph:

Corvettes have a well-known "blind spot", known especially to gamers of X-wing computer game series and used whenever they had to destroy one. However, this fact contradicts the very first scene of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope—Tantive IV shoots Devastator, right behind her.

Complaint: compare an ISD and a snubfighter in size, I don't know if any smaller-than-ISD vessels actually had a blind spot against a 1.6 km-long monstrum. Secondly, Devastator was not "right behind" the Tantive IV, but behind-and-above it. - TopAce 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• If it was behind Tantive IV, it wouldn't have been able to fire at it because of the engines, which were right there. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More to Say? Edit

• Is there that much material left to be said about the CR90, that the expand tag needs to stay? -Finlayson 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't much left to say. It's down now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tantive IV? Edit

I don't think that the ship captioned "Tantive IV" is in fact the Tantive IV. It has a large, black window on the front, like the CR90s in RotJ, unlike the Tantive IV.

• Then let's find a picture of it to take its place. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current solution, but we could use the one below if you'd like to have the Tantive IV on this page:

• That's not really a good image, though. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this:

Smeagol 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's better, but we should probably use the later version of Tantive IV. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

amount of turrets Edit

"Corellian Corvette list its armament as six double turbolaser turrets, despite the corvettes seen in A New Hope and Return of the Jedi clearly mounting only two such turrets" how is that relevant since you could only see two shots coming from the star destroyer and it has more cannons than that. Ugluk

• What does the amount of double turbolaser turrets have to do with a Star Destroyer? It's very confusing because of how you worded it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah i know, i meant that in the movie the star destroyer only has two turrets also.
    • Only two turrets? A Star Destroyer has far more than two turrets. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly but in the movie it only fired from two turrets, if it had more it would have used them so in this instance shouldnt the movie not be the "accurate" source
        • A CR90 is not a Star Destroyer. There was no need for Devastator to fire all of its weapons. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 21:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
          • But when in any battle did the Empire not go way overboard on firepower? it seems to me that if they had the weapons they would have used them.
            • The objective was to crippled Tantive IV, not destroy it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
              • If they were only crippling why didnt they use ion cannons
                • They got the same effect, didn't they? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 15:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well lasers can still be used to disable can't they, the Devastator proberly targeted the Tantive's engines Jedi Dude 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Plus, the damage inflicted caused the crew of Tantive IV to shut down the main reactor. That way, after a lie was created about the loss of Tantive IV, it could appear that the ship was having problems and had to shut down the main reactor on their own. Ion cannons wouldn't leave the same exact effect. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The Star Destroyer didn't use ion cannons because Lucas hadn't come up with them yet, or at least hadn't defined the disabling properties of ion cannons.

Cargo capacity Varies, depends on mission and modular configuration Edit

dose annyone know what these modules are?

• VT-16 might know. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Behind the MagicEdit

Can this quote be taken canon or is behind the magic perhaps not a canon source? Or should we just take another qoute? What I mean is, I can't imagine that one of the largest ship builders of the galaxy, which earns a lot of money through deals with the Empire, would make such an advertisement slogan. From the view of the Empire this would not be tolerable. As far as I remember Behind the Magic is set during movies and has nothing to do with the Expanded Universe, meaning this advertisement slogan would be before the Battle of Endor... Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Don't post at the top of a talk page. 2) The quote is canon. 3) Behind the Magic is a canon source. 4) So what? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Are we sure the quote even comes from Behind the Magic? I find it hard to believe an official source would use the term "jerk-ass." If it is in BtM, though, it is indeed canon - we've got to assume it was some sort of underground marketing campaign or something. jSarek 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's there. I didn't create it, I just extracted and transliterated it. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, it's in Aurebesh; that makes sense. Yes, definitely an underground marketing campaign, or possibly a used-starship lot advertising CEC ships they have in stock; given the Engrish-feeling word choices, I'd guess it's by someone without the best grasp of Basic. jSarek 22:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • @Nebulax 1.) Sorry. 2 & 3) Ok, just wondered about the choice of words for a canon source 4.) ? @Sarek: makes sense as an underground campaign, but we should then mention it as such, shouldn't we? Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Not necessarily. And as for the "So what?", that was in reference to "What I mean is... ...this would not be tolerable." —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Other variants Edit

What about the Transport Shuttles used at space ports in Star Wars Galaxies? They appear to be almost idential to the CR90, except for the second type seen in some places with only 4 engines and other differences. Why not mention them here too?

Turrets on escape pods?Edit

I see that the reference for the 4 turbolasers being on the escape pods is on Incredible Cross-Sections. I'm not sure exactly what that book says concerning the turbolasers, but in addition to it simply not making any sense to put your turbolasers on your escape pods, the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels explicitly shows the four turbolasers being on the four domes on the upper half of the ship, while the EIGHT escape pods are the four domes (per side) below. But without having ICW, I don't want to single-handedly change that in the article. Can someone tell me what that book says, and why EGVV wouldn't prevail here? Jenosidanian 05:48, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, no response for several days. I'm simply going to remove the phrase "on escape pods" from the armament description. Jenosidanian 03:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ventral tower Edit

I had a question regarding the ventral tower (the one under the big sensor array) on the CR90s. Form what i've seen, about half of the canon pictures of CR90s show the ventral tower as a docking ring/loading ramp similar to the one on the CR70 corvette from ROTS (see [4]). The other half show the ventral tower holding another sensor array dish, a mirror image of the dorsal tower (see [5]). Close inspection of pictures of the model of Tantive IV from ANH shows that the ventral tower on that ship is something else all together, not a mirror image of the top, but not a boarding ramp like some of the other pictures of Tantive IV (see [6]). Is one of these correct or should we just chalk this up to being an example of the "modular configuration" we've heard about. I think it should be noted that if there's no docking ring/boarding ramp there, I don't see any other way of getting on/off that ship. Also keep in mind that the first and third images I used as examples are supposedly the same vessel. Regardless, I think this deserves a mention in the article, whether in the "Characteristics" or "Behind the Scenes" Sections (or both). Tarvin Calaan 02:23, October 9, 2010 (UTC)