This is the talk page for the article "TIE/LN starfighter."

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.

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 Edit

The panels radiate the heat generated by the reactor.

— Ŭalabio 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quote Edit

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? —Darth Culator (talk) 21:35, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I know in my copy of I, Jedi it's spelled Seinar, but should it be changed to Sienar? Trip391 (talk) 06:15, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

  • This topic has been dead since 2005, so please do not resurrect it here. Start a new topic if you want to talk about this. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:30, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

"Schematic Anatomy"Edit

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. <Nelson Muntz>HA-ha!</Nelson Muntz> —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. Edit

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

When did the TIE Fighter enter service? Edit

Is the TIE Fighter a 1 or 0 B.B.Y. starfighter or older?

  • It's older than that, definitely. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 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. — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) NR Seal 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In 14 or 15 BBY, the Star Destroyer Strikefast had a complement of TIEs when it discovered Thrawn in the Unknown Regions. VT-16 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thrawn was discovered "weeks" after the New Order was announced. Those have been retconned as T.I.E Fighters, not TIE Fighters anyway. Aeods

ejection seat Edit

"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) Imperial Emblem 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)

From what I've seen, the ejection system is peculiar to one comic book, involving TIEs captured by the alliance, and apparently modified for the mission. Every other source I've come across emphatically states that TIEs do not have ejection systems, and I don't think this can simply be dismissed as "rebel folklore." The Alliance (and later the New Republic) starfighter corps had a number of ex-Imperial TIE pilots (such as Tycho Celchu), who would have been able to correct any misconceptions their fellows may have had about the basic capabilities of the TIE series (being able to safely eject a pilot is a pretty basic feature). If there aren't any other sources supporting ejection systems as standard on TIE fighters, I think we should remove that section, as it contradicts most other official sources. 18:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but don't forget about Star Wars: TIE Fighter (game). It clearly shows the player character being ejected from his TIE fighter. RockOn!!! 14:59, June 9, 2011 (UTC)RockOn!!!


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) Imperial Emblem 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. —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. —Darth Culator (talk) 01:57, 9 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) Imperial Emblem 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) Imperial Emblem 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) Imperial Emblem 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) Imperial Emblem 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) Imperial Emblem 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) Imperial Emblem 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
                              • Don't mean to cause trouble or anything but for the craft name "ln" standing for "line" and all, shouldn't the "L" be capitalised to prevent confusion between the Fighter and Interceptor? The Capital "I" looks the same as the small "L" on the TIE Craft list page. (Heck I thought that the Tie Fighter's designation was the TIE/in for years because of that.)Defender_16
  • What is this nonsense? I thought the pattern was either /Ln and /In or /ln and /in? With the current name you can't tell them apart. VT-16 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but sources call the TIE Fighter "TIE/ln" and the Interceptor "TIE/In". If I ever publish a novel, I'll make sure to use "TIE/in" for the Interceptor. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this is fairly old, but I've found a number of sources that give the TIE Fighter the /Ln designation... what's the deal? Jorrel Fraajic 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Luke's quote Edit

  • 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)

Top HatchEdit

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)

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) Imperial Emblem 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)

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) Imperial Emblem 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the TIEs have no CO2-O2 fitter? Double D 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

H-shape your basic villain's starfighter design Edit

I can't help noting that most of the major OpFor ships in the movies are an H-shape (when viewed from front). Ex: Ties, Droid Starfighters/Vultures, Darth Maul's infiltrator, Darth Vaders' Eta-2. Most of the other Ties in the movies share the H-configuration. (0-0)Bomber, <-o-> interceptor, |-o-| Tie, {-o-} Eta-2 (it's technically a villain's ship, as Vader pilots it to Mustafar. Should this be added as a trivia fact? 82 Airborne 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

the TIE/In is a different starfighter. It stands for TIE/Interceptor. The standard TIE Fighter is called Sienar Fleet Systems TIE/In Space Superiority starfighter. The TIE/In's in part is Interceptor. However the TIE/In is NOT the TIE Interceptor, rather a prototype of it. It is more maneuverable than your standard TIE Fighter, and I have sources to back this up. Sources: The New Essential Guide To Vehicles and vessels contradicts the idea of TIE/In being in space superiority in that it does not say plain /In, rather it says for the TIE Fighter /In Space Superiority And Star Wars Galaxies openly states the TIE/In as being a different fighter.

Also, the idea of the lasers being powerful is absurd. the new essential guide to vehicles and vessels openly states that the cannons are weak.

Advanced tie Edit

I think this article showed mention how the ties laser were sometimes modiefed to penetrae the hull on a star destroyer my source is when luke skywalker destroyed the teezel. Also i believe in the xwing books it states that ties do not have ejector seats. Darth Kaisr 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TIE individuality Edit

This page says that there are no attachments to certain TIEs by tie pilots. But it also links to "Black 2" and says that Vader's wingman had 27 flames painted on his cockpit for his 27 kills before the Battle at Yavin. GOOD choice of links, guys!

  • Hey, you know, I never realized that. But, the fact that there are kill paintings on a TIE doesn't mean that the pilot is attached; if he lost that ship, his kills would merely be transfered to a new TIE. Jorrel Fraajic 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that this is an old discussion, but I have to point out that the flames painted on the wingman's cockpit can't be explained away quite so easily. Under normal Imperial procedure, no pilot is likely to use the same TIE twice. When it's his time to go out, the pilot just jumps into whatever TIE happens to be next in the launch rack. Even if he happens to use the same ship more than once, chances are that a TIE pilot wouldn't even notice, since every TIE of the same make is supposed to be identical. Under those circumstances, the only way a pilot could keep a bunch of flames on the side of "his" TIE would be if he carried around a removable decal that he slapped on the side of the cockpit right before takeoff.

I think the real answer is that standard Imperial procedure doesn't necessarily apply to you if you are a favorite of the Emperor or of Vader. Anyone who is a good enough ace for Darth Vader to pick him as a wingman can probably get away with a lot of things that most pilots can't, including using the same ship every time he goes out. After all, Vader always uses the same TIE, so why can't his wingman?Atoman 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Name Edit

the TIE/In is a seperate starfighter from the TIE Fighter. The TIE Fighter is a more powerful version of the TIE/ln. Source: Star Wars Galaxies.

  • Anon has a point. The TIE Fighter and the TIE Interceptor are both labeled as "TIE/In Starfighter". Which is correct? Maclimes Zero (talk) Infinite Empire 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Waitaminute... So TIE/In_starfighter is not the same article as TIE/ln_starfighter?? One is a lower-case "L", and the other is an upper-case "I"? *snorts milk out his nose* Good thing this isn't confusing at all. Maclimes Zero (talk) Infinite Empire 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Anon: "TIE/ln" and "TIE Fighter" are the same. Zero: "TIE/ln" = TIE Fighter, "TIE/In" = TIE Interceptor. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Could we come to some sort of improvisation? The whole Fighter and Interceptor having the same abbreviation thing makes reading incredibly confusing, as you can't tell which is which. 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Uh, they're not the same abbreviations. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, it would be good if people could decide whether to use upper- or lower-case abbreviations now. So it should either be TIE/ln and TIE/in or TIE/Ln and TIE/In. Not only would this stop people from getting confused all the time, it also makes no sense to make the one abbreviation an using-upper case letter and the other doesn't. And yes: the TIE/ln is the successor of the first standard TIE Fighter, which is the successor from the T.I.E. - currently, the article is contradicting itself on this matter (at one point saying it's the same and at another point differing between the two), and this should be fixed. By the way, the TIE/ln being the improved TIE is stated in older sources than SWG, too, I just can't remember exactly where - was it the Stele Chronicles? Tulon 16:00 12 April 2007

First identified Edit

Okay, I'm gonna take a whack at this and say it was first identified in ROTJ when Lando tells everyone to split up. Anyone got anything different in mind? 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, we usually don't used the "1stID" tag unless it was identified after it's first appearance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, first appearance was in ANH, and unless it was identified in some other material sometime in there then it would've gone for two movies without a name Lalala la 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

TIE starfighter vs. TIE/ln starfighterEdit

Noticed this old list from Star Wars Sourcebook, showing different models based on the original TIE design: [1] Now the interesting thing is, the TIE/ln fighter has a seperate power generator for the guns, but the first Imperial TIE doesn't. The cross-section picture of the TIE fighter from SW:ICS does not appear to show any secondary reactor, so could this version seen in ANH be the TIE, while the one in ESB and ROTJ is the "Line" fighter? VT-16 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that has been implied in the past, but I've never seen it directly stated. jSarek 10:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • We'll need a little bit more evidence before changing anything. I've always thought that the standard TIEs in the original trilogy were TIE/ln's, but this does seem to say that I'm wrong on the matter. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm... that woud make a little more sense, because of the color change. Still too early and not enough evidence, but it is a definate possiblity. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I remember writing an article years ago, when Wookieepedia was first starting up, pointing out the two different models, but then I forgot where I'd read about them. I've seen Saxton Tech. Comm. site that the Line fighter had greater speed or could travel longer. Is there any official source that give different specs for the TIE and the TIE/ln? Saxton claimed there was different specs like the above, and that these were only associated with the Line fighter. VT-16 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to say something about this. I'm not sure if anyone here plays Star Wars Galaxies, which has been stated as canon, except for Player Characters, but there are multiple models for a TIE Fighter that look the same. The TIE Light Duty, TIE Fighter, and TIE/ln are the ones I can remember right now. I've read that they are all different, but only slightly so. The TIE Fighter and the Light Duty variant are identical in appearance, but the Light Duty is obviously equipped lightly. The TIE/ln is a bit more blueish, and has some slight changes from the original TIE Fighter. At least, this is what Galaxies says. I'm not sure if it is true. Adenn 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

CIS conection? Edit

Has any one else noticed that the TIE fighters panels look exactly like the CIS symbol also dose any one know if there’s a connection between them?Katana01 or Katana 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Price Edit

I have a question purely hypothetical of course, but what do you think the price range is for one of these things. I put this question on a few pages all ready so just to let everyone know that I'm not spamming or anything like that. 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you jSarek and Grand Admiral J. Nebulax for answering my questions, since some of of my questions concerning the price of of some of the vehicles have no canon answers, maybe some of you can speculate about the prices or provide your own personal answers, and would anyone happen to know the prices of the WESTAR-34 and the WESTAR-M5, and maybe someone can answer my question about CC-1004 Gree's visor colour. I'm going to put this on a few other talk pages in case this is not seen on this one. 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


The article needs to mention the weapons. They can be superpowered, according to Screams in the Void, and I think the game Tie Fighter.

Question Edit

Behind the scenes section says: "Although Expanded Universe material and also a speed chart used by the film crew of RotJ sets the speed of the TIE fighter to equal that of an X-wing, in ANH they are shown overtaking X-wings despite the latter "going in full throttle"." My question is, just cuz they have the same speed wouldn't necasarily mean they would go the same speed, does it? For example, an X-wing weighs a lot more (hyperdrive, torpedo launchers, R2 unit, shield generators). The TIE fighter is a lot lighter, so therefore it would go faster. That could explain why they do in the movie even though they have the same max speeds. --JuiceStain 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • But weight doesn't matter in space, right? Admiral Derek 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is true. And I even thought about that. But then again, explosions and sounds aren't in space, either. --JuiceStain 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But without them, Star Wars wouldn't have been as big of a hit as it is. Weight doesn't impact that. Admiral Derek 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I get what you mean...i guess it's just an error? Or...LoL.--JuiceStain 02:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Both craft do have the same speed, but the TIE Fighter just has a faster acceleration. Maybe that explains it. Admiral Derek 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. I think you're right.--JuiceStain 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the "weight" of a fighter has that much to do with it (even though objects in space still have mass, and massive objects are harder to accelerate). Newer references that measure speed in Gs, like the Essential Guide to Vehicles, list TIEs as being significantly faster than X-Wings. Even if X-Wings and TIE/lns have exactly the same speed, Darth Vader's TIE/Advanced X1 is supposed to be slightly faster than a standard TIE. I know that Vader's two wingmen stay right with him for the whole chase, but it would make sense if the engines on their starfighters were souped-up somewhat to make sure they could keep up with him.Atoman 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ANSWER: I know this is a little old, but only Luke and his wingmen went in full throttle. All the other trench runs mentioned nothing in the speed they were going. Also, if you watch the last trench scene, at least Luke was "jinking" (a last ditch attempt in a dogfight to prevent getting shot down) by zig-zagging down the trench to prevent Vader from getting a weapons lock. Luke also had issues stabilizing some engine issue, which may have caused him to slow down. Just as an example, get two cars at the same speed, then make one zig-zag like Luke and have the other do a straightaway. The straightaway car will pass up the other, even though they are moving the same speed.--Round Robin 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was always under the impression that the X-Wing and the TIE fighter's maximum speed was the same, and that even when an X-Wing is at full throttle, it does not go max speed when the S-foils are open. Hence even when Luke is shown flying his X-Wing out of hyperspace, his S-foils are shown to be closed except when extra maneuverability is required or to get a better spread of laser fire from the wing cannons. I'm not big into the Expanded Universe, but I have watched the original trilogy several times and played the Rogue Squadron series, and that's what I thought. -- 15:52, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Power of Weapons Edit

According to this article, the L-s1 laser cannons are "powerful" and that "a well-placed hit on a starfighter or medium transport could damage or destroy it." This is uncited and it does not seem accurate. According to The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, the "not very powerful" weapons are part of the reason why the fighters attack in large groups. Also, in A New Hope, the fighters hit the rebel X-wing and Y-wing craft several times before they are destroyed ((notably Luke's X-wing, where the damage is repaired, and Red Leader's X-Wing, who is able to maintain control of his craft for several seconds before it crashes)). Also, the Millennium Falcon (which, although it has been heavily modified, is still a "medium transport" ) sustains several hits and is not destroyed. What do you guys think about this? Starknights88 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd have to say that "a well-placed hit on a starfighter or medium transport could damage or destroy it" refers to unshielded craft. As seen in the Darklighter arc of the Empire comics, a well-placed shot does indeed destroy a (presumably) unshieled transport larger than the Falcon. I'll have to see which issue it's in. Besides, assuming all the craft that you mentioned above had their shields operating at a good capacity, perhaps the powerful shot was weakened by the shields, and what was left of the energy hit and caused the minimum damage you noted. Grand Moff Tranner 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization Edit

Should the more commonly known name of TIEs be capitalized? I see "TIE Fighter" and "TIE Interceptor" being used, but I also see "TIE bomber" used as well. Swiftsure 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I was wondering about this, too. I've been seeing a lot of TIE Fighters and TIE fighters. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


From the characteristics section: "However, despite this lack of protection, the fighter was at least able to survive glancing hits, as shown in ANH when the quad laser cannons on the Millennium Falcon score a few minor blows to the remaining fighter without causing much damage" Isn't the BTS section the only thing that should contain OOU references, or can things other than history contain them? Thanx, Car-em 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Is there any way to know how many TIEs were produced?Ciphe 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arc-170 StarFighterEdit

So, I don't want to sound like an idiot here but... why did they stop using the Arc-170 starfighter, or the V-19, it seemed to me, though I am not sure, that these fighter were just all around better than the Tie fighter I mean, the Arc and V-19 had lifesupport systems and the Arc had hyperspace capabilities. I know that the empire thought that having less sheilding and just in general sucky fighters would make pilots better at flying in order to survive, but was there any other reason? I like the V-19 WAY better than the Tie, even though the Tie is a classic fighter

One word, Cost71.32.175.63 19:10, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

actually that's not true at all, TIE Fighters DO outperform the V-wings and 170, as well as the Eta-2, but the Essential guides flubbed the acceleration rating, one of many errors they have made.

Dark Lord "the rise of Darth Vader" makes it a point that the TIEs were developed at the behest of Vader for a fighter superior to the Eta-2, which he felt was lacking.

after all, there is no reason why Vader of all people would go for the TIE Advanced, when the Eta-2 outperforms it, as cost is clearly no issue to Vader, and the very existence of the Death Star II is proof that cost is little to no issue to the empire at large.

Astromech Edit

How exactly could a rebel TIE hold an Astromech droid, there's not a whole lot of room? I mean, where would it fit?Ultrabountyhunter 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The captured TIE could have been refitted for the astromech. Who says they didn't mess with the hull a bit?

2 Battlefront game mechanic. Edit

In Star Wars: Battlefront II, TIE fighters have the ability to land in capital ships. Plus, TIE fighters in Battlefront I can land on platforms. These game mechanics should be added to behind the scenes.--Captain Martin Adamian 06:10, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • TIE fighters are able to land on they wings. Darth Morrt 06:43, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • I remember somewhere stating that though it was not a design consideration, they are able to take off and land on their wings. The wings are fully capable of supporting the weight of the craft without suffering any structural damage. It is more of a byproduct of design than an actual feature.
  • The hatch is on the top, and about 3.5 meters off the ground. I suppose a TIE pilot could jump down that far, and with a ladder or knotted rope, he could get back in to take off. The launching racks would make this much more convenient. Larry660 01:05, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ejector Seat Edit

"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 in the vacuum of space."

  • X-Wing: Wraith Squadron mentions that TIE fighters don't have ejector seats (page 162 of the paperback, should be somewhere around there in your copy). So, is the source given in the infobox (Star Wars Customizable Card Game – Dagobah Limited (Card: Lost In Space)) or the novel going to be treated as canon? Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 14:58, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
  • I say treat the book as more canon Jedi Warrior 15:48, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say it is probably an earlier and later model of a specific TIE fighter
  • Star Wars TIE fighter is wrong; it's the only source I've seen that says they have ejector seats. They don't in its sequel, Star Wars: X-wing vs. TIE Fighter.
  • WEG sourcebooks and Behind the Magic specify that the first TIE with ejector seat was the TIE/sa. I think it's also repeated in deAgostini's guide. IIRC there was a mention about retrofitting some TIE/ln's with ejector seats somewhere, but I'm not able to pinpoint it now. NLoriel 13:11, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Life Support? Edit

As seen in the recent Rebels episode Fire Across the Galaxy, people could pilot TIE fighters without the need for flight helmets implying that the TIE fighter is equipped with a life support system. Am I missing something? --Jpchewy01 (talk) 17:27, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.