Entertainment
 

Talk:Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Contents

[edit] Use by Non-Jedi Pilots

Is the jedi interceptor used by clone pilots atall, or only jedi?

  • We haven't seen it used by Clone pilots yet. By the time the Eta-2 was in use, most Clone pilots were flying ARC starfighters.

It can only be used by Jedi. It is interesting how this ship is more agile and yet more heavily armed than an A-wing.

  • The official literature about this fighter is confusing and self contradictory. The ROTS ICS, as well as almost every other official source, makes this seem like a Jedi-exclusive fighter. The ICS even goes so far as to say that the Eta-2 lacks many normal flight instruments, because the Jedi don't need them. However, the ICS also says taht 192 Eta-2s are part of the NORMAL fighter complement of a Venator-class Star Destroyer. We know that this is no mistake, because when the StarWars.com databank had a chance to clarify the Venator's fighter complement, it was the V-Wings, not the Eta-2s, which were said to be optional. This has left the fans with no choice but to speculate and try to rationalize this contradictory information. Some fans believe there might be a variant of the Eta-2 which might be designed for normal pilots. Other fans believe that the clones, having peak human reflexes, are the only ones other than Jedi who can handle the Eta-2. This is backed up by a passage in the AOTC novelization, in which Jango implies that he's not that far behind Jedi pilots (I can't confirm this since I don't have the book, I only heard this from someone else). JimRaynor55 19:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't Jedi be part of a normal Venator attack group anyway, thus the fighters? --Fade 20:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it has been established that there are only about 10,000 Jedi in the Republic. That means that a mere 53 Venators carry more Eta-2s than there are Jedi. Just to show how many Venators could be out there, ROTS ICS states that each Venator carries 36 ARC-170s, and that the Open Circle Fleet alone has "thousands" of them. Also, not all Jedi are pilots, further lowering the number of Eta-2s there could be if only Jedi could pilot them. JimRaynor55 20:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. That's me out of ideas, then. Missed the 192 bit as well. Oops.--Fade 20:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I briefly looked through Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide at my campus bookstore today, and I've finally found an answer. On page 54, the book states that the Eta-2s used by Anakin and Obi-Wan had retrofitted controls that suited their Force powers. I think it's safe to assume that the other sensor and instrument-less Jedi interceptors were similarly modified, and that the standard Eta-2 found in large numbers aboard Venators still retains those systems. JimRaynor55 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, I would dispute the 10,000 Jedi figure- where did you come up with that? First of all, we know there were only 200 on Coruscant right before the Battle of Geonosis- Mace even says "what Jedi we have left". Unless 9,800 were away on missions (highly unlikely, given that Jedi spend most of their time at the Temple anyway) there's gotta be far less. Not to mention that 10,000 generals is way too much... --Thetoastman 06:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not possible for these to be exclusively (or "almost exclusively," which is basically the same exact thing) used by the Jedi, since there are 192 of these fighters in the standard complements of Venator Star Destroyers, which were mass production warships. I already posted the solution to this problem in January (look above). The Eta-2s flown by the Jedi have "retrofitted" controls, which is presumably the lack of sensors, flight instruments, etc. that ROTS ICS mentions. Being retrofitted, they're not the same as the original, standard, Eta-2s, which presumably still have those systems. JimRaynor55 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I forgot about that. You're probably right. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • More likely is that they were used exclusively by Jedi during the war, and it was just Saxton who stuffed up with the numbers of fighters carried by the Venator's. Darth Windu
        • Canon is canon. They weren't exclusively used by Jedi. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I never said it wasn't canon, simply that it's ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as having Republic Gunships flying in space. Besides why would Clone pilots be flying Jedi Interceptors when they have perfectly good and expendable V-wings? Darth Windu
            • Why? Because they could. "Ridiculous" is your opinion; "canon" is the truth. Right now, you're trying to argue against canon with your opinion, which will get you nowhere. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Also because Eta-2s are faster and more agile than V-wings. And one single class of ship isn't really enough to cover all tactical advantages in space combat. For a simplified example, take Battlefront II: you've got Eta-2s and ARC-170s for dogfights, V-wings to take on the warships, and gunships to raid the flagship. Diversity's the key - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 13:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Exactly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • 'Truth' depends on your point of view, you should know this Nebulax. :) As I stated, I accept that it is canon, it still doesn't make it less ridiculous. As for the evidence from Battlefront II don't get me started, talk about un-canon in a convenient package. Sure, you need tactical diversity, but there are certain things Jedi can do and Clones cannot. As Clones do not have the reflexes and intuition of the Jedi, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the Eta-2's systems, and would hence fly the heavily armoured ARC-170 or more nimble V-wing. I can accept that Clones might have flown Eta-2's post-Jedi purge, but not before. Darth Windu
                    • Then you are going against canon. Until a retcon for the specs in RotS:ICS is made (which might not even happen), that word is canon. And not all Eta-2s lacked components, just the ones used by specific Jedi. Commander Jorrel Fraajic Communications Relay 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have any of you people considered the Jedi Starfighter Databank article itself?It says

that only a Jedi could take an Eta-2 into battle.The "192 Eta-2 fighters aboard a Venator-class Star Destroyer" statistic,which originated from the Databank itself,is probably a typo.All the Revenge of the Sith vehicle and vessel articles were knocked together in a big hurry shortly before the film came out,and there are other typos.Besides which,when we see the inside of the main hangar of a Venator-class Star Destroyer,there are clearly more than 36 ARC-170 fighters present.Furthermore,the clones are depicted flying only V-Wings and ARC-170 fighters.Also,it didn't say that the V-wings were optional.It said that whether the vessel carried V-wings or V-19 Torrent fighters was optional.The Delta-7 could have been flown by clones,but not the Eta-2.The Delta-7 is stated to have an advanced sensor system,but the Eta-2 is stated in the Databank to achieve its speed,power,and performance at the expense of sensor equipment.The targeting computer on the Eta-2,although it had a display similar to the one on the TIE Fighter,was very bare-bones and relied on the astromech for sensor input.If any of you payed attention to the MOVIE,you would have realized that.ZeldaTheSwordsman

    • Very good points. If I remember correctly, in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, it was mentioned that the Jedi in fact flew stripped-down versions of the ETA-2 because they didn't need all the instruments, implying that there exist ETA-2's with more robust specifications. Further, has anyone here seen a source that asserts that the ETA-2 was commissioned specifically by--or for--Jedi? If not, we must assume their is a full-spec ETA-2. Regardless, I've never seen anyone but a Force-user pilot one, so until we see it in the EU or it's otherwise retconned, I'm content to let the article say (APPROX.): 'though there -may- be a more robust ETA-2, only the stripped-down variant has been seen and then only piloted by a force-user.'Elex Wulfen
      • I don't see why we should just throw out the statistics given in the RotS:ICS. That could have been the standard complement when the Venator-class was first produced in the middle of the war. Over the final battles, I'm sure numerous clone-piloted Eta-2s would be shot down, and there would be more ARC-170s and V-wings in service to fill the gap left by the destruction of so many Eta-2s. This might not be the case, but like I said, I don't think we should just disregard the statistics because they don't seem logical from what's seen in Episode III. Besides, we don't see every Venator destroyer in the film itself, only a few. Grand Moff Tranner 11:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree. It would be best to limit ourselves to only what we -know-. It's simpler that way.Elex Wulfen 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Clones flying them contradicts the Databank. I will keep grinding this axe until it's so sharp that it can cut stone like a hot knife cuts butter if I have to. ZeldaTheSwordsman 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would assume non-jedi could fly them, as in SWG (I know some of it is not canon but a lot is) it is possible for non-jedi to aquire and pilot the Eta.84.70.7.150 11:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Sith Fighters

I think the Sith Fighter has a similar appearance to the Eta-2. they both have similar canopy/cockpit hull areas, similar wings (though the Sith Fighter has larger wings), they both have twin ion engines, the Sith Fighter also looks like it might have somthing like vertical radiator panels. They are both small, fast, and agile. I beleive that at the very least, they bear a vague resemlance to each other.

70.109.226.209 21:54, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Seeing as the Sith Fighter was designed to look like the Jedi Interceptor it would. Jasca Ducato 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interceptor or Fighter?

In the databank it is referred as 'Jedi Fighter', yet here it is referred as 'Jedi Interceptor'... Which source refers to it as such? --Andrelvis 00:58, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • From Wikipedia: An interceptor aircraft (or simply interceptor) is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, particularly bombers. So it's both—the terms are not mutually exclusive. – Aidje talk 02:09, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, just take a look at our own interceptor article :-) – Aidje talk 02:10, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • It's more of an interceptor than a fighter. The Delta-7 starfighter was, at most, a fighter, but the Eta-2 was more of an interceptor, even though it could be considered a mixture of both a fighter and an interceptor. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:59, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler Warning?

Does this page really need a spoiler warning? There's really nothing in it that I would specifically label as a spoiler...at least in my opinion.--Knightfall 00:20, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, it really does seem useless. But considering the craft is in Episode III, the spoiler warning should remain. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:21, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, I thought that it was a {{EpIIIspoiler}} warning. Oh well, it's gone anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:25, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • It has been decided before (on Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal) that those general spoiler warnings are no longer needed, though we haven't finished going through and removing them all. As for the EP3 spoiler warning, they will all be removed on December 1 (1 month after DVD release), so there's not really much point adding it now. --Azizlight 00:29, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astromech

I'm at a loss for how an astromech can fit into this thing. Obviously they do, but the Eta-2 looks like its body isn't tall enough. Like the astromech's feet ought to be sticking out of the bottom of the ship. 68.47.234.131 06:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The astromech's feet do. If you look closely at some images, you'll see them sticking out. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do not agree with you the undersides of and Ecta-2 have a box like area under where the Astromech would be and to make it symmetrical the same on the other side and also if you notice the Astromechs stick up more out of the hole than in other ships that only allow their head to stick out--Darth Vader II 01:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with you here is a pic taken directly from the movie of the underside of Anakins Interceptor and im still not seeing the Astro droid feet
File:PDVD 001.jpg
134px
--Darth Vader II 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because it's an image of Boba Fett from RotJ. And you're still wrong. When Anakin's and Obi-Wan's Eta-2s divide into action, you can clearly see R2-D2's and R4-P17's feet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 14:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that is not the picture i put in but anyways can i see your proof --Darth Vader II 16:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the whole battlescene and i didnt see either R4s or R2s feet--Darth Vader II 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

you still havent shown proof to your statement could you show me a screen shot of this for your proof because i have looked through that scene and other interceptor scenes and im telling you the atro droids feet dont hang out the bottom--Darth Vader II 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Im still waiting for your proof and i still say that the feet do not stick out unless you can prove me wrong

  • I can't get a good screenshot, but I'm right, and I think you know that. It's clearly seen in some screenshots during the opening battle. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you tell us where exactly you can see it, and I'll get a screenshot - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • One of the diving into battle scenes. I'm pretty sure the one where the interceptors dive into the swarm of Vulture droids would be a good one. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • How about this. Clearly shows Obi-Wan's fighter, rear view. The astromech is on the left, but no legs are visible - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 12:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, we may already have a good shot from the movie on Wookieepedia that shows the legs. I'll have to do some searching. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You may think that a foot but its not its just part of the hull if you look in this pic its a bit clearer
        • Certainly look like astromech feet to me. But if you look at the droid socket, you can see that there is more than just the dome of the droid in there. Shots of the R2 astromech showing its dome telescoped off its body explain how they fit into the Naboo N-1 fighter droid socket, and clearly there isn't enough room for that type of socket on the Eta-2, so the astromech must be hanging out of the bottom; where else could the bottom half of the droid go? They don't bend at the waist!Tocneppil 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no astromech feet or any of his body hanging out of it look at this pic does any of this look like an astro droid
  • Hmm, I'm apt to agree with Darthvader99 with that picture. Maybe Obi-Wan's starfighter has a problem with the model or something in the sequence... JorrelFraajic 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No. R4-P17's feet are hanging out. Not R2-D2's, but that can easily be explained to modifications. And the thing is, we have proved proof that R4's feet are hanging out. Yet Darthvader99 here is disputing canon because he's not willing to accept the truth. My point has been proved with a screenshot from Episode III. This discussion is over. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay i will agree with Obi-Wans fighter and ill agree it can be from diffrent modifiers anikan put on his fighter to make it more efficient so i say we end this argument and basically say in a way we were both right --Darth Vader II 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what happened here. On the actual full-sized Eta-2 prop, the legs stick out, but are in a metal box on the CGI model.ZeldaTheSwordsman 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • there are images supporting both sides. Not only do we have those images above, but you can see that R2 has feet hanging out a few seconds after the shot where you showed that R4's feet hang out. Though you can also see that there is a compartment under R4 when Anakin and Obi-wan open their stabilizers. It was probably just an error in the movie that the design switches. Kind of like how R4's body changes color from red to white. I personally think that the fighters have compartments, but that's just me. Neither of us have the evidence we need. Let's just agree that sometimes in the movie the legs hang out and other times there's a compartment.Sonic-Toad 01:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols

What are the symbols near the rear of the interceptor and on the ARK-170 starfighter and the Venorator class stardestroyer's wings and also the spider web-like symbol(that looks almost like the Empire and C.I.S. symbols)near ARTOO(or ARFOUR on Obi-Wans interceptor)?

[edit] Vader's interceptor?

Anakin must have gotten a new starfighter, the back of the Invisible Hand broke off, including the hangar. And didn't the new Eta-2 have a wierd paints scheme, like dark green with red stripes or something? -Aiddat 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clone Wars section

The Clone Wars section reads like an abbreviation of the section right above it. I don't see why we even need a Clone Wars section, as most of the information in the first section relates directly to the Clone Wars, anyway. Can someone nix that section and assimilate any nonredundant parts into the first section, please? --Thetoastman 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Instead of getting rid of it, why not take the information relevant to the Clone Wars section and put it in there? We do need a history section for it, after all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in a bit of a panic here. I added info from the Clone Wars Campaign Guide about the heavy defenses variant and cited it...but then somehow the whole Clone Wars section disappeared. Funny thing is that although it's no longer visible in the article, you can see it when you go to edit. I can't figure out what it is that I did wrong, and I give up. I'm sticking with text only until I can figure out how it's done. I don't know HTML and I don't know wikia formatting. Sorry everyone.Kai Ell 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ion Cannons?

Evidently the 2 smaller guns on the Eta-2 are ion cannons but in ROTS all four cannons appear to fire lasers. You can see the smaller guns firing when Anakin destroys the shields on the Invisible Hand before they board it.

  • Yet another flaw in the movies. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a "flaw" in the movies, since that's the highest canon. If there was a contradiction, it's a flaw in the C-canon book. But there isn't even a contradiction. Just because the blasts are green doesn't mean those were lasers (blue ion cannon blasts are a game mechanic, and the majority of Old Republic laser blasts in the movies are blue). Furthermore, ion cannons can inflict some physical damage. The ROTS ICS even states that the amount of heat released by the Invisible Hand's ion cannons is 4.8 megatons. JimRaynor55 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"The New Republic engineers powered up the ion cannon and focused a single blast toward the lower section of the closest Imperial walker. The bolt struck and fused the knee joint of the AT-AT's front foreleg, melting the servomotor mechanisms."
―Dark Apprentice p.115

Ion cannons are just another type of energy weapon in SW. We've seen AT-AT lasers mess with electronics as a side-effect as well (inside Luke's T-47 in ESB). Different sides to the same thing. VT-16 09:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, then. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the ROTSICS also states ion cannon blasts are plasma. The bolts shot are green. There is no such thing as green plasma - the energy levels of the photons from an incandescent surface that correspond to the color green interact witht he rods and cones in our eyes in a manner that we see it as yellow or blue depending on how far they are, not green. Same for purple. So the ratioalization there should be that the description is for the generic Actis, but Anakin modified his. It is supported by the fact that Labrynth of Evil states that his carries proton torpedos, yet they are clearly not shown on the diagram. Lowkey 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose that would work. So, Anakin's Eta-2 has laser cannons instead of ion cannons, then. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's possible to create plasma of almost any colour. It follows more or less the same rules as flame colours do. (Yes, I'm perfectly aware this is a somewhat old discussion, but I can't let bad science pass idly by.) Cortle Steeze 15:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm late to this party, but in fact, flames ARE a kind of plasma. Green plasma may be less commonly observed because blackbody radiation that peaks in the green is actually interpreted as white to our eyes (this is why stars go yellow-white-blue instead of yellow-green-blue), but if the ion cannons are using an element with strong green spectral lines as ammunition, they could easily appear green. Draxynnic 03:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric Speeds of the Eta-2 and Delta-7

I've been having a quick flick through wookieepedia, and on the Eta-2 and Delta-7 entries the maximum atmospheric speeds are listed as 15,000kph and 12,000kph respectively. After bringing up the TIE/In page, I have concluded that either the technology of starfighter drive systems deteriorated drastically after the Clone Wars, or there's an extra zero on the end of each.

I'm going to change it. Just so you know.

Vyze 19:02, 13 August 2006 (GMT)

  • People keep doing that, and they keep being wrong. Please see the Delta-7 talk page and ARC-170 talk page and don't try to fix any more misprints that aren't misprints. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And just to let you know, Vyze, if you do it again, it will be considered vandalism, and you may be banned. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh. Shame that I didn't read through the Delta-7 discussion page as well. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but at least there's a discussion on the subject in this page as well, now. Vyze 16:34, 14 August 2006 (GMT)
  • Nothing deteriorated fighter-wise from the CW era to the GCW era. WEG, who made the early statistics for their RPG games, treated SW fighters as slower than most modern-day jet fighters, for some reason. Not all writers treated starfighters as that slow in their books, so you'll find some discrepancies in older material, as well. VT-16 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

also to add to this i remember that the fighters in question all have shields except maybe the eta 2 and only advanced models of ties have shields and ties are built to be SPACE superority fighter and it cant afford to move very fast or it could possibly tear the panels off while maneuvering(Boommer3 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

i didnt say they couldnt operate in an atmosphere i just said they cant couldnt work that well(Boommer3 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Do you have a source to back up your claim? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have an exact quotation or something, but in nearly every X-Wing book that has TIEs flying in the atmosphere, their instability in atmosphere (due to their incredibly un-aerodynamic design) is mentioned in narration and probably in dialogue as well. 64.47.148.150 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i cant remember wat it was but if i look for it maybe(Boommer3 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC))


I wish to clarify something... during the Republic's defense of Belderone in Labyrinth of Evil, Anakin was sporting a fighter 'similar to the earlier Delta-7s flown at the beginning of the Clone Wars'. So, I'm assuming it's the Eta-2. However, in one part of the novel, it says tht Anakin had launched a pair of proton torpedoes at a picket/gunship's failing shields n thus obliterating it. But according the armanent specs of the Eta-2, it does not carry any proton torpedoes. Is it possible that the Eta-2 could carry protorps or issit referring to a different fighter altogether? Thanx.

p/s: Sorry if the adaptation from the novel is slightly inaccurate

  • I think they could carry proton torpedos, but it's likely a modification made by Anakin. However, the Eta-2s in Battlefront II can carry proton torpedos. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My guess would be the fighter being referred to is infact Anakin's Azure Angel II. It is not only a modified Delta-7, and hence would look like one, but also carries and fires proton torpedoes. Darth Windu
      • I don't think so. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 12:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Err...why? It doesn't bother me either way, I just figured Azure Angel II makes more sense because it fits both criteria, whereas the Eta-2 does not. Actually do we know exactly when Anakin switched over from Azure Angel II to his yellow Eta-2? Darth Windu


I'm pretty certain it's the Eta-2 Actis because him and Obi-Wan were flying the same ship. Furthermore, the colour scheme noted by Grievous onboard the Invisible Hand matches the Eta-2 Anakin flown during the opening battle scene of RoTS which is consistent because throughout the novelization, Anakin flew the same starfighter. Likelihood, it's the Actis...Plus the Azure Angel was damaged during the Praesitlyn conflict. -Naz-

It HAS to be the Eta-2. It is described as having two separate fuselages connected by a cockpit, and as having a full-sized astromech socket. And it sure can't be the Azure Angel, because it's also described as "faster than the Azure Angel he'd flown at Praesitlyn." ZeldaTheSwordsman 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Design

  • The Eta-2 fighter is an odd design. It is compact, yet has a spacious cockpit. The cockpit provides good visibility, except forward, where the view is somewhat limited by the weapons (I don't know what kind of weapons) that jut out in front.Smokey

[edit] Aurebesh inscription

I recently (and by recently I mean today) started to build a 3D puzzle of Anakin's Eta-2. I noticed a string of Aurebesh characters on the side. I checked my RotS Visual Dictionary, and found the string there too, and, as best as I could tell, saw the same string of characters. Obi-wan's ship had the same markings; however, they weren't the same characters. I decided to translate them, and I got the words "Elbert" and "Maria." Is it known anywhere in Star Warsdom if someone named "Elbert Maria", "Maria Elbert", or some other varient is prominent, as in, did they design the modelling for the ships and so on? ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic File:Insignia.jpg Communications Relay ~~ 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, thanks to Darth Vader II, I have a picture of the Aurebesh. It's a little blurry but it matches the stuff I found elsewhere, including the number of letters and things. JorrelFraajic 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebel usage?

Where did the bit that says the Rebel Alliance used it come from? Is it from Galaxies or something like that? And if so, does Galaxies state that the Rebels used it only, or can any player use it? Unit 8311 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 140,000 credits?

If the Eta-2 is a more advanced fighter than the Delta-7, then why does it cost less? where did you get the info that it is 140,000 credits? Popper

  • (All quotes taken directly from the page of the craft it describes) "The Eta-2 was significantly shorter than the already diminutive Delta-7. The new fighter's mass was further reduced by removing much of the forward space-frame" and "Unlike the Delta-7, the Eta-2 was not equipped with shields" demonstrate how the Eta-2 was significantly smaller and possessed one major system fewer than the Delta-7. Also: "astromech droids were integrated directly into the [Delta-7] starfighter, with only the droid's truncated heads visible" whereas "The Actis did have room for a full astromech droid, instead of a truncated unit as was fitted into the Aethersprite." This means that the Delta-7 had to be purchased with all necessary astromech components already hard-wired into its systems, while the Eta-2 featured only an empty socket at time of purchase, further reducing its price by not accounting for roughly an entire astromech unit. Does all this make sense? And I'm not sure of the sources, I am taking my facts directly from the articles here, which are all supported by a canon source. Valderaad Dathomiri 21:57 Mon Jan 7, 2008 UTC

I have to agree wit valderaad here. sory, jumping in on a conversation. The price is reduced due to the lack of most components of a delta-7. Master Jamie 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Also Eta-2s don't have proper repulsorlifts which usually can lift a ship to a sub-orbital altitude but the Eta's only soften landings and assist take-off, it's all in incredible cross sections.Lieutenant J.J 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Lieutenant J.J
    • Looked at another way, sometimes 'cheaper to build' is an improvement in and of itself. ;) There are real-world examples of designs which were refined in ways that didn't improve performance (and in some cases even removed features, although usually features that were seen as unnecessary) in order to make production faster and cheaper. In the Star Wars universe, the TIE/ln is the posterchild of this principle. Draxynnic 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big Guns

Do the "guns" in between the wings actually fire in the movie and in battlefront 2 they fire rockets or is it that the writers for incredible cross sections made a mistake because there isn't actually a hole for the laser to come out of therefore it is impossible for it to be a gun. Lieutenant J.J 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Lieutenant J.J

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Eta-2_Actis-class_light_interceptor"