# Talk:TIE fighter

You guys made a mistake. TIE fighters don't have any shields, compared that you say they have limited shields.
Film evidence shows shields (at least a form of navigational deflector) on certain ties  in Ep IV (A New Hope) --Eion 00:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also Lucas Arts released a Tie Fighter game which confirms the basic TIE Fighters had no shields Kav2001c (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

I don't think the other TIE craft belong on this page, considering they each already have their own articles. Oberiko 23:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The image needs a copyright tag. -- Alan Au 07:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Added a {{fairuse}} tag. Alan Au 06:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

	The panels radiate the heat generated by the reactor.
	—
	— Ŭalabio 02:21, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

The panels are a source of energy that is designed to improve the TIEs performance

As stated above the tie fighters do not have shields. The only exception to this in the movies is Vader's tie x1.
Also, ties do not have ejector seats. In one of the rogue squadron books a pilot is told to "punch out" and replies "no ejector seat remember". I would love to know where you see an ejector seat in a tie in V. 70.105.68.30 00:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The novels sometimes have errors.  Since TIEs are so poorly shielded  (just a deflectorshiels for deflecting dust which would otherwise shred the TIEs before the could engage the enemy),  most strikes are lethal to the pilot.  In the Empire Strikes Back, one can see a successful ejection from a TIE.
	—
	— Ŭalabio‽ 02:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
WHEN!!! 70.105.106.147 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
p.s. ties have NO SHIELDING WHATSOEVER. 9at least the regular ones).

Incorrect.  Shield flashes shown on a TIE fighter in A New Hope.  Rogue 9 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmmm...........that picture does seem convincing enough. Well, maybe TIE's have the bare minimum amount of shielding (as said before, deflector shields to protect from space dust) and the laser just knocked that out with a glancing blow. --Stopher717 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose that TIE Experimental 5 TIE Booster, TIE/rc Vanguard, and TIE/gt Fighter be merged with this article, because they are experimental models, short articles, and their pictures can be placed in the section. Deckiller 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  Since there's already the Wookieepedia anyway, I don't see why we should give seperate articles to all but the most prominant of the ships (TIE fighter, bomber, intercepter, defender) Beowulph 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-=nods=- Okay; I'll take care of the merges during halftime. Deckiller 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is agreed, I will put some more merges up and split the headers into "Variants" and "Experimental models".  That way, the TIE/e series can go in the second header, and the TIE/gt and TIE/hammer and whatnot can go into the first one. Deckiller 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm happy with ships like the TIE Defender being merged with this. There was plenty of info on it that separated it, making it's own article rather good (in my opinion, at least). Cylith 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes well another place in which lucas has contradicted himself.  Many expanded universe stories have told about the ties lack of sheilds. 7:45, 23 may 2006
Well actually not quite.  The whole TIE Fighter Vs X-Wing thing was based around WWII Pacific Area Dogfighting.  The Early TIEs matched up with the Zero - highly manouverable, well armed, but one shot could possibly destroy the plane and pilot. This was soon discovered by the Americans who upgraded their planes to match with the Zeros.  The Zeros soon started coming down in flames.  However the Japanese cottoned on to this and began upgrading and redesigning the Zeros to incorporate heavier armour and better weapons.  The same thing would naturally happen in the Star Wars world.  The Shields would be fitted to many standard TIES, but newer versions of the TIE Fighter (i.e. the TIE Advanced (aka Vader's TIE) would be put out.)  So technically Lucas was right.  No Empire worth it's salt would put out a fighter against an agressive enemy that would cause more damage to it's own troops than to the enemy.  Lucas must have known this (and probably got complaints written from all the newely created Fanboys (and girls) who stated that this was stupid.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.6 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC) 

Copyediting done and flag removed. Sorry if I missed anything. May I suggest that either a table or a footnote be added for each type of TIE fighter to inform readers as to where said variants appeared in the SW Universe?--Anchoress 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Should TIE varients such as the Clutch and TIE-wing be included?  While not offical variations fielded by the Imperial Navy, they are modifications to the standard TIE design. -- Raveled

Is it not possible that TIE fighters may have different models, even if they dont look too much different we only get a clear view into the cockpit of a TIE fighter rarely and not a great view at that. 
So maybe some were equipped with an ejector, or some were given roles in postings near dust clouds which is why they may need a little shielding however they dont talk about the amount of armour a TIE fighter carries.

I have a question about the following passage:

Also contrary to common belief, the large panels on either side were not solar panels, but oversized radiation panels. These panels were necessary because the ion engines not only generated huge amounts of thrust for their size but also large amounts of harmful radiation. On the Imperial model TIE, the panels were mounted on posts to keep them away from the pilot. Nearly all books and other materiel from the Expanded Universe do however state that the panels are in fact solar panels.
If nearly all books and other material from the Expanded Universe state that they are solar panels, aren't they solar panels? TomTheHand 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{cleanup fiction-as-fact}} tag after coming to this article looking for the origin of the TIE fighter sound in the movies but instead found little more than treatment of the TIE as a real thing. --NewtΨΦ 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the "Trumpets of Jericho" sirens on a Stuka fighter plane are like the sounds that the TIE fighters make... George Lukas influenced by this plane,  perhaps?([1])

Well, the discrepencies between TIE fighters and X-Wings, and the fights between the Falcon and TIEs were both influenced by WWII footage.  It's not impossible, certaintly. -- Raveled 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember the phrase "after stupidity and hydrogen, TIE cockpits are the most plentiful resource in the galaxy" from the novel I, Jedi. It is perhaps exactly the same. I not very sure about copyright stuff, but this seems not right. Also, the paragraph does not sound official.

Wonder why they couldn't have bakronymed it to "The Imperial Empire" instead? --80.47.95.10 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 

    Because that sounds retarded.

Back before Empire came out, a reader wrote in to the Marvel UK Star Wars Weekly asking what TIE stood for, and the response was "The Imperial Empire", suggesting that the acronym wasn't defined at that point. Kelvingreen (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An early issue of Starburst magazine (low 10's) and/or perhaps Scale Model's review of the Darth Vader TIE kit (need to check this, but someone might have it closer at hand) cites the official colour as "Pactra Stormy Petrel Blue".  However, this colour no longer exists in the Pactra range, so it is hard to find out more about it. [PEC]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.114.154 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 

There is actually such thing as a TIE engine. It's used on some spacecraft. The only difference  is that real TIE engines go much slower than the ones on Star Wars. I learned this when History Channel did a Star Wars Tech episode. How should I add that in here? Abcw12 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction...If I'm not mistaken it's not that they are slower; it's that they accelerate much slower. The top speed for either crafts is close to the speed of light. (A ship in space can continuously accelerate as long as it has fuel. There is no friction to slow it down.)  Cylith 12:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of existing spacecraft that can approach anything close to the speed of light. The fastest spacecraft ever designed is the New Horizons probe (at 16.21 km/s (36,260 mph)), so you are clearly mistaken. IvoShandor 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about theoretical yield. With nothing in space to slow a craft down, it will continue to accelerate so long as it doesn't run out of fuel. That's true with any ship in space, as it relates to the lack of friction in space. (You would have to assume a reasonable amount of distance from any gravitational body.) If you could put a modern space ship far enough away from a large gravity source, and then give it unlimited fuel, it would eventually approach the speed of light. The problem with this is that those two conditions are, as of now, unrealistic. In fact, you wouldn’t need a modern day space ship: As long as we’re talking theory here, you could have a ship in deep space (no gravity) that has a thrust output equal to 0.001g of acceleration, and it would eventually hit near c speeds (assuming unlimited fuel again). REMEMBER in space there is not theoretical maximum speed except the speed of light. They mainly limited by ACCELERATION. This means ALL current space craft are capable of speeds near the speed of light, as their top speed (max theoretical). Sorry, but it is you who are mistaken.Cylith 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
While theoretically true, as the craft approaches the speed of light, its mass increases sharply along a very steep curve until it reaches infinite mass at the speed of light.  So, as the craft approaches the speed of light, it will take ever increasing amounts of fuel for it to continue to accelerate.  Of course, assuming unlimited fuel, this isn't an issue... Epstein's Mother 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the real-life TIE stands for Thermal Ion Engine. I thought the same was true of the fictional fighter but apparently not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.104.55.242 (talk • contribs) 

Can anyone identify where the image comes from? The image page says it's from RotJ, but it most definitely is not. --EEMeltonIV 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The contents of TIE interceptor, TIE/Advanced fighter, and TIE bomber are entirely plot summary. I'd suggest redirecting those pages to TIE fighter and providing a Wookieepedia link to each in external links. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's a good idea. I suggested a similar thing for the Resident Evil viruses. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of August 14, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are many 1-2 sentence paragraphs throughout the article, could these be merged with other sentences or more be written about the subject?
2. Factually accurate?: The last paragraph has no sources and could be considered original research.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Are the two extra images of TIE craft really necessary? If not then they go against 3a of the WP:NFCC
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— T Rex | talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the three images are necessary in that this article covers all variations of the TIE fighter, and that's them. :) I'll help fix it up per your review. Judgesurreal777 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I added one of those images to help illustrate one of the most common of the numerous TIE variants. Three FU images in one article beats the older problem: 20+ images of various TIE fighters across ten articles. I think the last merchandise paragraph should be removed for GA status and reintroduced later if sources are found. — Deckiller 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A couple things I noticed that didn't get mentioned as per the on hold, not to step on anyone's toes or anything, but just a couple notes.
The lead might need some work per WP:LEAD, it doesn't really summarize the article.
I have often wondered, "TIE," seems to be an acronymn, does it stand for something? I didn't notice this in the article.
IvoShandor 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The TIE acronym is mentioned in the first paragraph of the "depiction" section. Perhaps the full version can be spelled out in the lead to help strengthen it? — Deckiller 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I read right past it, it should probably be included in the lead somehow. IvoShandor 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I gave the lead a bit of an expansion. — Deckiller 04:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Much clearer now. I would say that also addresses my comment about the lead. : ) IvoShandor 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to give it a copy-edit; I never had a chance to view it with fresh eyes, since I helped to merge/expand it. — Deckiller 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, do those redlinks need to be links, are the people notable enough to have articles? if not then they should probably be de-linked. T Rex | talk 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am not familiar with the no red links clause of WP:WIAGA, certainly non-notable links need to be removed but I can't see any good reason to remove links that may soon or one day hold an article. IvoShandor 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the GA status, I was just wondering, because non notable red links just make an article look bad. T Rex | talk 06:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My fault, just assumed that it referred to the GA on hold since it was under that thread, (I put it under its own heading now-hope that's okay). I went ahead and removed the link to Sienar Fleet Systems, almost did it when I did some copy editing but just skipped over the lead so I didn't. The other red link I left in, seems he could be notable, not up to me to determine but whoever authors the article, or researches it to determine whether it merits an article or not. And I agree that non-notable links make an article look bad and wouldn't support their inclusion. IvoShandor 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All concerns were addressed, this is a good, informative article that never gets to crufty, well written and NPOV. Well sourced and images + infobox make the article nice too look at as well. I'm not sure how much more this can be expanded without going into information that should only be included on Wookiepedia. Congratulations to all who helped this gain Good Article status. T Rex | talk 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noted a reversion of a conversion to metrics, apart from being part of the MOS, conversions are essential. English Wikipedia is an international project, meaning international readers. Conversions should always be included, noting that the majority of English speaking countries adhere to that system, which is far more accurate than the imperial system anyway. By all means keep the original imperial measurements but reverting metric conversions is uncalled for. IvoShandor 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to parenthetically add a conversion, but since the figures come from a specific source, simply converting them to metrics and erasing the original numbers is silly. As you point out, it's an international project; Imperial and metric units would be most appropriate. Go ahead and add the metric ones, but (as you point out, because this is an international project), it's silly to delete the numbers that are actually in the article. --EEMeltonIV 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article states "Sound designer Ben Burtt created the distinctive TIE fighter sound effect by combining an elephant call with a car driving on wet pavement."  When was this?  The TIE fighter's engine sounds appear in a movie called "The Magic Sword" (1962) missing only the hissing sound at the end.
It seems more likely that Burtt merely edited a pre-existing sound rather than generated it on his own.
BHenry1969 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the TIE fighter joke on Family Guy should be mentioned here.

I think the TIE fighter joke on Family Guy should be mentioned here on the Cultural Impact part of the article

Just a reference to Blue Harvest is all we need. and by the way, please sign your posts and do not post twice.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Having seen a WWII era Gloster Meteor fighter at an air show recently I was struck by the similarity of the induction noise of the engines (in isolation from exhaust noise) to the engine sound of the TIE fighter.  Does anyone know how the sound was created? 203.217.13.50 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it something to do with the sounds of a Elephant trumpeting and the sounds of a car skidding on wet concrete combined and put through some post production??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.6 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 
This sounds really like the Tie Fighter noise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCjGsKKevSQ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.31.143 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 

I don't have a source for this, but I had always assumed TIE was a backronym (since the ships look exactly like bowties, and "twin ion engine", really?).  I came to Wiki to confirm this and found no reference to it.  Surely there's some documentation of the origin of the name somewhere? Phoenix00017 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Could Tie Fighter come from Thai fighter (a dude who practices Thai boxing)?
Maxence2323 23:32, 03 August 2010 (UTC)   

"The TIE avenger and TIE defender—heavily upgraded derivatives of previous craft seen in the Star Wars universe—first appear in TIE Fighter as player-pilotable craft."
Minor Thing. But i don't think this is true. There might be a misinterpretation in the ingame briefings as well but there is no Tie-Avanger in the Tie-Fighter game.
The craft called Tie-Avanger is likely to be the Tie-Advanced, Vaders personal ship that went into mass production in the Tie-Fighter Game.
178.202.48.220 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

TIE Fighter devs made something like a TIE advanced/TIE interceptor hybrid and dubbed it the TIE avenger. That's what the article refers to. It's accurate. --EEMIV (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on TIE fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822121649/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/starship/tiefighter/?id=eu to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiefighter/?id=eu
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060603113532/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/organization/tiefighterpilots/?id=eu to http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/tiefighterpilots/?id=eu
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050402061723/http://starwars.com:80/databank/starship/tieadvancedx1/?id=bts to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tieadvancedx1/?id=bts
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050307182916/http://www.starwars.com:80/databank/starship/tieshuttle/?id=bts to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tieshuttle/?id=bts
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061201050056/http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiebomber/?id=bts to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiebomber/?id=bts
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061112143809/http://starwars.com/databank/starship/tiedefender/?id=bts to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiedefender/?id=bts
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on TIE fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070807135044/http://shop.lego.com:80/Product/?p=6206 to http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=6206
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070626171149/https://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=10175 to http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=10175
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928014432/http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/swallcards.pdf to http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/swallcards.pdf
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070913103240/http://cargobay.starwars.com:80/webapps/cargobay/browse/673/150-10 to http://cargobay.starwars.com/webapps/cargobay/browse/673/150-10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the TIE propulsion system was an advanced reaction-less thruster. But this is saying it can throw a stream of ions (invisible I guess) in any direction, making it a plain old reaction thruster like today's rockets.  Comments? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on TIE fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69hivvUJO?url=http://www.nwherald.com/ to http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/06/28/news/local/doc46821dc05bfc4653298723.txt
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69hj4gCzt?url=http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/imperial-tie-fighter/p9607-box-front.html to http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/showphoto.php?photo=9607&cat=3544
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69hj5U0cd?url=http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/tie-interceptor/p11581-tie-interceptor-box-front.html to http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/showphoto.php?photo=11581&cat=3307
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69hj7YxVH?url=http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/imperial-tie-fighter-pilot/p12321-imperial-tie-fighter-pilot-carded-front.html to http://photos.sirstevesguide.com/showphoto.php?photo=12321&cat=3198
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)