PT fighter evolution

[weemadando]

I always saw the X-wing as more of a "strike fighter" or "fighter-bomber" than as an actual space-superiority fighter. The A-Wing was a space superiority fighter. Which to me appears to be a direct descendant of the aethersprites.

And then I saw and ARC-170 and made a mess of my pants. Because its awesome. Almost as awesome as a LAAT. I want more LAATs.

[Ender]

So you figure the 'engines' are also the powerplant, and that the larger engines are required by hyperdrive? That makes sense - but I wasn't aware ARC-170s were jump-capable?

ICS's never show any sort of 'hyper core' or any sort of other powerplant other than the actual engines, in larger craft, the 'main reactor' feeds right into the engines.

Incorrect. There is a specific and seperate reactor shown on the Y-wing, X-wing, TIE Advanced, Delta 7, Tri-fighter, P-38, and IIRC the N-1.

So we have to reason that the engines are the powerplants too. Sure, they have aux. reactors and power sources, but not as large and powerful as the engines.

Engines consume rather then produce power; while you could use the ejected plasma to turn a turbine to produce power, that does not work out with the kind of power these engines have to have. I covered this indepth with Primey once, bacically that engine exhaust is something like 5 billion kelvin. Even on the assumption that the turbine could be made to handle that, the thrust stream would now be jumbles instead of focused, meaning some will hit your engine burning it away, and the collisions will produce intense amounts of gamma rays, similar to GRB ejections.

[Knife]

Incorrect. There is a specific and seperate reactor shown on the Y-wing, X-wing, TIE Advanced, Delta 7, Tri-fighter, P-38, and IIRC the N-1.

I'm seeing stuff labled 'power generators' and 'power cells' and a 'power core' on the Falcon but nothing that say's their any sort of hyper matter reactors. They could be anything from the electrical system to some sort of aux power.

Engines consume rather then produce power; while you could use the ejected plasma to turn a turbine to produce power, that does not work out with the kind of power these engines have to have. I covered this indepth with Primey once, bacically that engine exhaust is something like 5 billion kelvin. Even on the assumption that the turbine could be made to handle that, the thrust stream would now be jumbles instead of focused, meaning some will hit your engine burning it away, and the collisions will produce intense amounts of gamma rays, similar to GRB ejections.

But the ICS for the OT has exactly that, ref: they Y-wing. In it's engines they have labeled 'Heavy Ion Jet Turbines (built to last) right in the thrust stream.

Ref: X-wing, Turbo imperller. Again right in the thrust stream.

Ref: Blockade Runner, Customized fuel pre-cycler and turbo injectors and just aft of those, Ion pre-cycle impellers and just aft of those, Ion turbine. All shaded yellow for the thrust stream.

It would seem that the SW galaxy has the material science to with stand their own thrust to generate power. As lower cannon, we have the X wing games and even the X wing novels mentioning taking power from the engines and redirecting it to other systems.

[Ender]

Incorrect. There is a specific and seperate reactor shown on the Y-wing, X-wing, TIE Advanced, Delta 7, Tri-fighter, P-38, and IIRC the N-1.

I'm seeing stuff labled 'power generators' and 'power cells' and a 'power core' on the Falcon but nothing that say's their any sort of hyper matter reactors.

So because it doesn't state the fuel it doesn't count? We know that fighters, by there very nature, are poor choices due to delta V restrictions. We know from other sources that the power cells are the source of aux power. Now you want to argue that they just slapped on another reactor for kicks and giggles despite it being unnecessry and detrimental to performance? Occam's razor is cutting your throat here.

They could be anything from the electrical system to some sort of aux power.

Knife, I want you to think very carefully about who you are trying to bluff about power generation tech to, ok? Appeal to my own authority aside, I'm also the person on these boards who has studied that type of SW tech the most.

Without knowing the exact mechanism for hypermatter annihilation, we cannot state if a generator is different from a core. Even if it is, it is seperate from the engine disproving the concept that the engine is both propulsion, reactor, and generator. The cells are backup power, but only provide enough to start up the reactor (ref X-wing series, upon a loss of main power activation of the landing gear turns on the emergency power cells allowing sufficient power to bring the main reactor back online, analygous to the EDGs on modern vessels)

Engines consume rather then produce power; while you could use the ejected plasma to turn a turbine to produce power, that does not work out with the kind of power these engines have to have. I covered this indepth with Primey once, bacically that engine exhaust is something like 5 billion kelvin. Even on the assumption that the turbine could be made to handle that, the thrust stream would now be jumbles instead of focused, meaning some will hit your engine burning it away, and the collisions will produce intense amounts of gamma rays, similar to GRB ejections.

But the ICS for the OT has exactly that, ref: they Y-wing. In it's engines they have labeled 'Heavy Ion Jet Turbines (built to last) right in the thrust stream.

Ref: X-wing, Turbo imperller. Again right in the thrust stream.

Ref: Blockade Runner, Customized fuel pre-cycler and turbo injectors and just aft of those, Ion pre-cycle impellers and just aft of those, Ion turbine. All shaded yellow for the thrust stream.

It would seem that the SW galaxy has the material science to with stand their own thrust to generate power.

I did not say it lacked it, nor did I deny that they had turbines there in the engines. I argued that the turbines produced power. Note that in the ROTS ICS, it says a similar mechanism provides magnetic torque to the thrust stream - It is part of the flying mechanism, not part of the power plant.

As lower cannon, we have the X wing games and even the X wing novels mentioning taking power from the engines and redirecting it to other systems.

redirecting power distrabution from the engines does not mean the engine is the reactor Knife. It just means that less power is going to the engines in favor of other systems, meaning it will accelerate slower.

[Knife]

So because it doesn't state the fuel it doesn't count? We know that fighters, by there very nature, are poor choices due to delta V restrictions. We know from other sources that the power cells are the source of aux power. Now you want to argue that they just slapped on another reactor for kicks and giggles despite it being unnecessry and detrimental to performance? Occam's razor is cutting your throat here.

Why not? Low power generators for start up and electrical systems. None of the power-insert qualifier here- are that large in comparison to other systems of the ships. The power generators in the Xwing's and the Ywings are the same. In the Xwing, they plainly show the power generators connected to the power converters that 'rephase energy for ship subsystems'.

Why shouldn't we reason that it's a aux power plant for the ship with a transformer hooked up to it for electrical systems?

Knife, I want you to think very carefully about who you are trying to bluff about power generation tech to, ok? Appeal to my own authority aside, I'm also the person on these boards who has studied that type of SW tech the most.

Not trying to step on your toes, here Ender but looking at the various fighters and who does and doesn't have hyperdrive. Every hyperdrive capable ship has big fucking engines strapped on to it. It can't just be volume for a hypermatter reactor. The N-1 has hyperdrive and no where the volume of the larger ships, but she does have some fairly large sized engines strapped on.

The Awing doesn't have that much more volume than the Vwing, but she has two very powerful engines strapped on her and she's hyperdrive capable while the Vwing isn't.

I'm not seeing where Occam's is kicking my ass here.

Without knowing the exact mechanism for hypermatter annihilation, we cannot state if a generator is different from a core. Even if it is, it is seperate from the engine disproving the concept that the engine is both propulsion, reactor, and generator.

Something I noticed here that might be of importance. In the OT ICS, the ventral disk where the fuel is, it has a the main fuel line angled away from where the 'power core' is in the ship and actually has it heading right for the hyper drive.

So unless the hyperdrive itself is some sort of hypermatter reactor, why would the main fuel line head that way instead of toward the supposed power generator or even the engines?

The cells are backup power, but only provide enough to start up the reactor (ref X-wing series, upon a loss of main power activation of the landing gear turns on the emergency power cells allowing sufficient power to bring the main reactor back online, analygous to the EDGs on modern vessels)

I have no problem with that.

I did not say it lacked it, nor did I deny that they had turbines there in the engines. I argued that the turbines produced power. Note that in the ROTS ICS, it says a similar mechanism provides magnetic torque to the thrust stream - It is part of the flying mechanism, not part of the power plant.

Produce power for what now? If we have power cells for batteries, and power generators that have converters on em for subsystems, what would the turbines power?

The sublight engines, baring some hypermatter reactor, are the most powerful power source on a fighter. They allow a fighter to pull amazing amounts of G's. I see now reason why they couldn't redirect this power to the hyperdrive and don't really see anything in the ICS that show a 'warp core' type mentality with the hyperdrives in the fighters.

redirecting power distrabution from the engines does not mean the engine is the reactor Knife. It just means that less power is going to the engines in favor of other systems, meaning it will accelerate slower.

Possible, I guess it could be indicitive of both.

[Ender]

Why not? Low power generators for start up and electrical systems. None of the power-insert qualifier here- are that large in comparison to other systems of the ships. The power generators in the Xwing's and the Ywings are the same. In the Xwing, they plainly show the power generators connected to the power converters that 'rephase energy for ship subsystems'.

Yes. So why should we assume this is some kind of auxiliary power supply instead of the main reactor? If you are right you are reducing the fighters effectiveness, not increasing it.

Why shouldn't we reason that it's a aux power plant for the ship with a transformer hooked up to it for electrical systems?

Because an aux generator is completely illogical on a fighter Knife. It adds way too much mass for the benefit, plus we have the statement that they use power cells as aux power.

Not trying to step on your toes, here Ender but looking at the various fighters and who does and doesn't have hyperdrive. Every hyperdrive capable ship has big fucking engines strapped on to it.

Small engine equipped
TIE Defender
TIE Advanced
Modified TIE Interceptor

And the large engine nonequipped:
K-wing
A-9 Interceptor
I-7 Howlrunner

It can't just be volume for a hypermatter reactor. The N-1 has hyperdrive and no where the volume of the larger ships, but she does have some fairly large sized engines strapped on.

The Awing doesn't have that much more volume than the Vwing, but she has two very powerful engines strapped on her and she's hyperdrive capable while the Vwing isn't.

Or it could be that the added mass of the hyperdrive and its fuel require a more powerful and thus larger engine for the same accelerations. I think you have brought up a valuable point in identifying FTL capable fighters at a glance, but I think you are assuming a cause and effect instead of just a correlation.

I'm not seeing where Occam's is kicking my ass here.

Not on the engine bit, on the aux reactor bit.

Something I noticed here that might be of importance. In the OT ICS, the ventral disk where the fuel is, it has a the main fuel line angled away from where the 'power core' is in the ship and actually has it heading right for the hyper drive.

So unless the hyperdrive itself is some sort of hypermatter reactor, why would the main fuel line head that way instead of toward the supposed power generator or even the engines?

It circulates hypermatter around the ship for initiating the hyperdrive, whereas the reactor annihilates it. Ref AOTC ICS

I have no problem with that.

You should, as it kills your "aux generator idea" since that serves as proof that lower mass and lower volume power cells are used instead of a massive aux reactor.

Produce power for what now? If we have power cells for batteries, and power generators that have converters on em for subsystems, what would the turbines power?

Nothing, that's my point.

Power cells for aux power.
Onboard reactor for main power
Turbines in the engines simply add the magnetic torque to the thrust stream.

If the turbines disrupted the thrust stream, all fighters would need shields to deal with rogue plasma spurts vaporizing thecraft, and to protect the pilot from the intense gamma flus that would result from mass collisions in the thrust stream.

The sublight engines, baring some hypermatter reactor, are the most powerful power source on a fighter.

See, this is where we disagree - I don't think they are a source. These aren't like our fusion or AIM engines - they don't derive energy from their ejecta mass. If they did, the Isp wouldn't be nearly as high as they are credited as. Its a new mechanism, likely similar to the streams observed off quasars, neutron stars, GRBs, etc. Any energy the turbines would be getting would have already been applied to turn it into the plasma exhaust. Thermodynamics kills this dude.

They allow a fighter to pull amazing amounts of G's. I see now reason why they couldn't redirect this power to the hyperdrive

They redirect energy from the engines to the hyperdrive.

and don't really see anything in the ICS that show a 'warp core' type mentality with the hyperdrives in the fighters.

We have evidence of seperate reactors, and the idea that the engiens themselves produce power doesn't mesh with thermodynamics and known rocketry principles. More to the point the aux reactor idea goes against common sense when you consider the effect on delta V.


I'm on duty dude, so I'm kinda limited here. But if you want to go really indepth into the tech discussion fo fighter engienes tomorrow when I'm home I can bust out all the stuff about reactor mass:power thumbrules, mass ratios, delta v, exhaust temp, etc.

[Knife]

Cool, I'll wait until tomarrow.

[Stark]

Non-SoD, it's a shame the EU designs are so poor.

Still, it's arguable that the jump-capable Imperial fighers can get away with it: I'm really only familiar with the lame TIE Fighter jumpships, like Defender et al. Defender (I believe) started off having a large module at the back of the ball - it was more of a cylinder - and later got retconned to the 'broken shuttlecock' design we have now. So it made sense initially.

The ships with larger engines in OT are all more 'primitive', ie Ywing has much larger engines than even Xwing but has WORSE performance. Either those drives are simply rubbish, which really tells us nothing, or something about the Ywing makes it heavier. PT ships like ARC-170 and N-1 confuse this a bit, but the N-1 could simply be a design element, since they're hardly cold-military designs. I'm not familiar with ARC-170 specs: if it's that large, and still fighter-maneuveurable, maybe that explains the engines.

[Noble Ire]

The ships with larger engines in OT are all more 'primitive', ie Ywing has much larger engines than even Xwing but has WORSE performance. Either those drives are simply rubbish, which really tells us nothing, or something about the Ywing makes it heavier. PT ships like ARC-170 and N-1 confuse this a bit, but the N-1 could simply be a design element, since they're hardly cold-military designs. I'm not familiar with ARC-170 specs: if it's that large, and still fighter-maneuveurable, maybe that explains the engines.

Strictly speaking, they Y-Wing is a bomber, not a space superiority fighter. Its designed for atmospheric strikes and cap ship support, and is dependant on other defending fighters to make up for its slow speed and lack of moblity (caused by the increased energy drain on its core needed for shields and weapons.) Also, since their really only used by the cash strapped Alliance and quickly phased out in the NR, they could also be simply "crap fighters."

[Stark]

*EU eye twitch*

<snip anti-bomber diatribe>

Unless anything you just said makes it massively heavier, their drive units must simply be crap. Given the look of them, compared to what we now know of PT-era ships, it's pretty clear they're just rubbish.

It COULD - if we were to hug and kiss the EU - be argued that the drive units are so big due to some other consideration, like effiencency. They might use more power, or generate less heat, than the Xwing drives. Perhaps this is to save on powerplant size/mass or fuel - or perhaps the power saved is used for the <twitch> turrent-mounted <twitch> ion guns <twitch>.

[Knife]

*EU eye twitch*

<snip anti-bomber diatribe>

Unless anything you just said makes it massively heavier, their drive units must simply be crap. Given the look of them, compared to what we now know of PT-era ships, it's pretty clear they're just rubbish.

It COULD - if we were to hug and kiss the EU - be argued that the drive units are so big due to some other consideration, like effiencency. They might use more power, or generate less heat, than the Xwing drives. Perhaps this is to save on powerplant size/mass or fuel - or perhaps the power saved is used for the <twitch> turrent-mounted <twitch> ion guns <twitch>.

The actual engines of the Ywing are not that big, at least in comparison to the Xwing. It's just they have that shroud or out rigging that extends them. Since the Ywing doesn't have Sfoils, the outrigging might be a radiator system. Or maybe not.

Also note that the bulb infront of the engine is sensor systems. The ICS also has the Y wing with two power generators instead of the one shown in the Xwing cross section.

[Stark]

True, that leaves less than a third the length of the whole pod thing for engines, which makes it similar in volume to a pair of Xwing drives.

[Cykeisme]

Regarding the correlation between sublight engine size and hyperspace jump capability..
Could it be the case that the link is indirect?
Perhaps the hyperdrive system is of considerable mass, thus requiring larger sublight engines to provide decent sublight performance. Ships without a hyperdrive system are lighter, requiring less thrust to achieve similar sublight performance.

Regardless, Darth Vader's X1 TIE fighter is a top-level canon ship that has tiny ion engines but is hyperspace capable, so large engines are not a prerequisite.


I also share a similar dislike for EU X-Wing wank. X-Wings in the movies don't seem to perform noticeably better than any other fighters in the space superiority role. If I recall correctly there's a doc used by the ILM design team for creating visual effects shots that showed the X-Wing and TIE Fighter having the same maneuverability and "top speed". Their performance in the movies was dictated by that doc.
Their firepower and durability doesn't seem to be much different either.
Edit: I remember someone pointing out that TIE Fighters explode into pieces, whereas X-Wings turn into flaming hulks when destroyed. I suppose X-Wings are a little more durable, then.

[Knife]

Regarding the correlation between sublight engine size and hyperspace jump capability..
Could it be the case that the link is indirect?
Perhaps the hyperdrive system is of considerable mass, thus requiring larger sublight engines to provide decent sublight performance. Ships without a hyperdrive system are lighter, requiring less thrust to achieve similar sublight performance.

It's possible, in fact that is exactly what Ender is saying. However that means that some where in that fighter is another power source capable of powering the hyperdrive, which means that you have another engine gobbleing up the fuel.

Personally, I rebel at the idea that SW ships have thier version of a warp core. A power source specifically for hyperdrive. Those sublight engines crank out a shit load of energy for the G's the fighters pull, I don't see why they wouldn't use em.

Regardless, Darth Vader's X1 TIE fighter is a top-level canon ship that has tiny ion engines but is hyperspace capable, so large engines are not a prerequisite.

The ship also sported four Ion engines. Twice as many as the standard TIE.

Edited; odly enough I didn't respond to the actual meat and potatoes of his post.

[Lord Revan]

TIE/A (TIE Avenger or TIE Advanced (take your pick) has two rather small engines (compared to non-TIE hyperspace capable craft) and is Hyperspace capable.

[Spartan]

Stark wrote:

The first Jedi fighter (the Delta-7?) was obviously designed to take advantage of Jedi pilots - it apparently has no missiles, an astromech in an apparently poor position, etc. It's engines have already become the small features common in all later high-end fighters. I assume much of the 'arrowhead' surface is for heat radiation, as the engine/cockpit/gun volume is very small.

No it was modded for jedi use but the design was not specific to the Jedi, which is why Jango and Boba new of the design. Which would seem very unlikly it was specific to the mere 10,000 or so jedi in the galaxy. It was be extremely rare indeed.

The Original Nex wrote:

They were probably prototypes and not mass poduced. It seems that the Republic favored KDY and Incom fighter lines more than those of Seinar during the 13 years span of the PT. After RotS KDY is given exclusive contracts on capital ships (something they did not monopolize during the Clone Wars), but lost their fighter contracts, as Incom seemingly did. For some reason or another the Empire began to favor SFS fighters more than the fighters of the other major starship contractors.

That's not very likely, given that they are stated to be on guard duty in what is termed as an Important system. More likely is that just like the Mandator-class Stardreadnaughts those fighters just fought in places that we were never shown.

Darth Raptor wrote:

Isn't the Sith Infiltrator a Sienar design? How does this fit into starfighter evolution? Can you even consider it a starfighter or is it too big? A gunship, then?

Its was a a Sienar Star Courier design that was custom modded. The infiltrator is far to large to be considered in a discussion on fighters, especially given is range which outclasses most shuttles. Its more along the lines of the Naboo yacht, the Millenium Falcon, or Slave-1. It does however make use of the radiator fin's and sublight engine arangement of TIE style craft.

Stark Wrote:

I didn't know that the Naboo ship had hyperdrive. This means Xwings, for all their EU wanking, are rubbish, since the Naboo ship is much smaller and has almost the same capability. I'm sure the Xwing was used for practical reasons, but the regular 'Xwings are the best shit ever' thing is nonsense.

I think that there is a range limitation involved the N-1 are limited to 1,000 light years while the ARC can make 5,000 light years. The Utapau's home grown fighters were capable of 3,000 light year ranges. The X-wing is probably in the intermediate range. Also the ARC-170 sports some huge laser cannons, the X-wing being a descendant of the ARC-170 probably has far more firepower then the N-1.

Kartr_Kana wrote:

The Infiltrator was a modified seinar according to TPM:ICS. I thought that the fighters that were escorting Palpentines shuttle did have folding wings? I thought thats what happened when one landed behind the shuttle. I am not sure but I think the shuttle is Mu class shuttle.

Theta-class shuttle as already stated, The fighters were Alpha-3 Nimbus "v-wing"'s and yes the wingtips do fold.


Knife wrote:

Shrug, in PT era before massive war, short range fighters seemed the best. Planetary forces only had to protect their own space and didn't have to jump across the galaxy to engage the enemy. This bit was still in evidence durring the Clone Wars even though the galaxy's need was changing.

I have to agree, as even backwatter rim world such as Utapau had home grown hyperspace capable fighters with 3,000 light year ranges.

[Spartan]

Ender wrote:

I'm on duty dude, so I'm kinda limited here. But if you want to go really indepth into the tech discussion fo fighter engienes tomorrow when I'm home I can bust out all the stuff about reactor mass:power thumbrules, mass ratios, delta v, exhaust temp, etc.

Please, do post them I've been meaning to ask you about your reactor scaling calculation as well.

[Knife]

TIE/A (TIE Avenger or TIE Advanced (take your pick) has two rather small engines (compared to non-TIE hyperspace capable craft) and is Hyperspace capable.

Hmm, spent the last half hour or so looking for the right screen cap, but I can't find one.

Popped in the DVD and at the end where Vader is spinning out of control after the Deathstar explodes, when he recovers and zooms away, you can plainly see four red dots on the back for the engines as opposed to the two on normal TIE's.

I'm fairly certain that the Avenger has the same set up since it is the production run of the X1 and as for the Defender, like I said in another thread, she has more power requirements than other TIE's so it's not a stretch to think that what ever engine or power plant it does have is more powerful for those needs.

[Lord Revan]

TIE Avenger and TIE Advanced/X1 are not identical they share the same basic hull shape but the Avenger has differen "solar" panels engines and weapon compliment (4 lasercannon and a dual warhed launcher).
(from XWA upgrade project)
the rear of the TIE/A

[Knife]

TIE Avenger and TIE Advanced/X1 are not identical they share the same basic hull shape but the Avenger has differen "solar" panels engines and weapon compliment (4 lasercannon and a dual warhed launcher).

So if the visable engine nozels are twice as big as normal, and it still has an extended hull, we are to deduce that the engines are just as powerful as a normal TIE?

The whole point of this tangent is that the TIE X1, Advance, and Defender have larger and presumable more powerful engines than your normal stock TIE. These are also the ships with hyperdrive, which fits nicely with my pet theory.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*EU eye twitch*

<snip anti-bomber diatribe>

Unless anything you just said makes it massively heavier, their drive units must simply be crap. Given the look of them, compared to what we now know of PT-era ships, it's pretty clear they're just rubbish.

It COULD - if we were to hug and kiss the EU - be argued that the drive units are so big due to some other consideration, like effiencency. They might use more power, or generate less heat, than the Xwing drives. Perhaps this is to save on powerplant size/mass or fuel - or perhaps the power saved is used for the <twitch> turrent-mounted <twitch> ion guns <twitch>.

Wrong. It is the films that indicate technological/developmental stasis in the SW galaxy. If Y-Wings are inferior, it is because they were intentionally designed so as an economy fighter. Things do not get "outdated" in a few decades in SW. It doesn't happen. More likely in a static civilization, they are particularly suited by design for a particular niche, and they do not achieve the TIE Fighter's niche as well as their own (and presumably vice versa).

All I see here is irrelevent anti-EU diatrabes. It is evidence, and you don't get the luxury of ignoring it at will.

[Illuminatus Primus]

TIE Avenger and TIE Advanced/X1 are not identical they share the same basic hull shape but the Avenger has differen "solar" panels engines and weapon compliment (4 lasercannon and a dual warhed launcher).

So if the visable engine nozels are twice as big as normal, and it still has an extended hull, we are to deduce that the engines are just as powerful as a normal TIE?

The whole point of this tangent is that the TIE X1, Advance, and Defender have larger and presumable more powerful engines than your normal stock TIE. These are also the ships with hyperdrive, which fits nicely with my pet theory.

Correlation != causation.

Hyperdrive-equipped fighters will necessarily need to have longer sublight range and endurance than short-range, base- or mothership-bound fighters. Also, the causation can be reversed; the TIE X1 and Avenger do not have drastically larger radiator panels than the TIE Bomber. Heat is vented via engine nozzles. Engines which burn hotter but at the same thrust will carry away more reactor heat and necessitate larger or more numerous engine nozzles.

Jet turbines simply cannot work in SW fighters.

[Ender]

Regarding the correlation between sublight engine size and hyperspace jump capability..
Could it be the case that the link is indirect?
Perhaps the hyperdrive system is of considerable mass, thus requiring larger sublight engines to provide decent sublight performance. Ships without a hyperdrive system are lighter, requiring less thrust to achieve similar sublight performance.

It's possible, in fact that is exactly what Ender is saying. However that means that some where in that fighter is another power source capable of powering the hyperdrive, which means that you have another engine gobbleing up the fuel.

Personally, I rebel at the idea that SW ships have thier version of a warp core. A power source specifically for hyperdrive. Those sublight engines crank out a shit load of energy for the G's the fighters pull, I don't see why they wouldn't use em.

Except the thing is, the engines don't crank out any energy. They consume it by the boatload.

This topic apparently came under much debate during ROTS, look at the last page of the ROTS ICS in the credits and it makes mention of this

I'm gonna try and make this as clear as I can, but its pretty hard to do. I suggest hitting wikipedia or atomic rocket pretty hard after this if you have questions:
By our current understanding, it is impossible to have both a high thrust, high efficiency engine like those that appear in Star Wars. The only thing close is the nuclear saltwater rocket, and it is under heavy debate. A large part of the reason for this has to do with mass ratios and delta V. Delta V is the total change in velocity the rocket is capable of, and mass ratio is the dimensionless number representing the initial mas of the craft prior to the burn divided by the mass of the craft after the burn (for calculating the total delta V it would be the ships total mass divided by the ships non ejecta fuel mass). These become very important when planning a mission. For example, let's say you want to accelerate at rate X for delta V Y. To do so, you need a reactor to provide power, fuel for the reactor, radiators to dissipate the waste heat, fuel for the engine, and structure all of it. now lets say you increase Y, but need to maintain X at the same. This means a longer burn, so you need more fuel, both for ejecta, and for the reactor to power the engine for longer. You also need more reactor fuel to provide more power to generate the same thrust now. So you now need a bigger reactor and bigger radiators. All of which increase the structure. So the total mass has gone up, so you need to re run all of this again. As you can see, beyond a certain point it starts to become a neverending process (hence why having a backup reactor on top of backup power cells is a bad idea, it makes this problem worse with unnecessary mass). So the engineers try to improve eficiency as much as possible by increasing exhaust velocity (specific impulse, represented by isp, is a measure of thrust per unit of propellent mesured in seconds. Multiply the isp by gravity, 9.8m/s^2, to get the value in m/s). Since F=ma, the greater the specific impulse, the smaller the amount of propellent to generate a given amount of thrust. Since E=1/2mv^2, the energy required will increase exponentially, while the thrust linearly. This causes the above problems with the mass of the craft. This is the reason behind my earlier statement of high thrust high eficiency rockets being impossible. Engineers try to cheat this in some designs by having the propellent reaction create the energy needed to accelerate it. In tese designs, you could also harness the energy from the thrust stream to propell the ship.

The problem here is that this doesn't really match what we see from SW engines. The designs that get energy from the fuel have limits on ther specific impulse that are far too low. For quick reference, the exhaust velocities of a fusion engine is .1 C, M/AM engine .3 C. Yet the exhaust velocities for SW ships are almost C (and for BotE calcs can be used as such). the limits on the power of these reactions means that even if you increased the mass flowing throught he engine for thrust and to increase the energy released, it would still slow down overall because the average energy applied to each particle would lower (and this ignores issues like building up a charge and blocking the flow path). So all currently known desings that involve harnessing energy from the engines are out. It would require a type of matter with a reaction that released far more energy then E=mc^2 allows, and it now appears that SW is still bound by that constraing (ref ROTS:ICS).

The thus far unofficial solution takes a page from nature and says that the engines mimic interstellar jets - like those from protostars, quasars, neutron stars, and gamma ray bursters. These hurl out very dense plumes of plasma at high velocities by a means currently under debate but suspected to involve magnetic torque (a mechanism or generating which appears in the ROTS:ICS Trifighter entry). While some reaction of the ejecta would occur, and the result would be the release of gamma rays, it would be too low for really matter (incidently this explains the description of the Last Call's engines in Dark Rendevous) as the engine would consume far more energy then the reaction released.

So now we know scientifically that getting a net positive energy return from the engines won't happen. Now lets look ath the engiens themselves to see if a little handwavium applies and overrules:

Corellian Corvette - Has a proper set of impulse turbines in the engine liek the theor would require. But also has a clearly identified main reactor. In addition, the movies says the main reactor was shut down, not that the main engines were. So whatever function the ion turbine serves, it doesn't generate power.

TIE fighter - No shot of the engines, but the description says the engine has no moving parts, making it low maintenance. So turbines are out.

X-wing - there is some kind of bladed thing termed the tubo impeller in the engine. However, its alignment and blade positioning is all wrong or a turbine.

Y-wing - said to have a heavy ion jet turbine as part of the ion fission engine. However, the term "ion fission" here is itself odd as a fission based engine will not provide suficient specific impulse. Perhaps its a brand, like the A-wing Event Horizon engines? Anyways, back on topic, the turbine there is set wrong. The middle blades should be angled the other way, and they shouldn't be ofset like that, it would jsut slam the plasma stream agaisnt the blade instead of channeling it. That whole thing is just goofy.

TIE Advanced X1 - Nothing on the engines, but does have a solar ionization reactor identified, and we now know solar ionization appears to be a brand of hypermatter reactor.

Republic Cruiser - Has a "magnetic turbine" However, this thing is extremely thick and consists of only one stage, making it more backwards then our current turbines. This may serve to apply magnetic torque just like the device in the Trifighter, as atomized, ionized, ignited fuel is applied to it directly before the end stage.

Royal starship - Powr core identified in center of ship away from engines.

N-1 starfighter - lacks any kind of turine mechanism. Does however have an unlabeled component identical to the Advanced X1's reactor mounted directly behind the torpedo launcher.

Senatorial Barge - The reactor is labeled as being prior to the engine, not as being part of its end stage.

Delta 7 Aethersprite - has a main reactor labeled between the laser cannons

Naboo yacht - main reactor identified on second deck, engines on first.

Nantex starfighter - lacks any kind of turbine mechanism, has a seperate identified main reactor

Actis Interceptor - high powered reactor identified above the engiens, not as a part of.

Trifighter - Identifies bot a main reactor core and an ionization reactor, perhaps the latter ignites the fuel into plasma? Has a call out to a turbine like components saying it adds spin to the ion steam. Spinning a cahrged substance such as plasma will apply magnetic torque per my admittedly limited understanding of electircal theory, which is required by the common explanation for interstellar jets that these thigns are suppossedly modeled after.

Missiles - both feature the reactor prior to the engine

Porax P-38 - has the annihilation reactor mounted prior to the engine, but no secondary fuel lines. Perhaps the plsma that results from the reaction is reaccelerated after having most of its energy removed and ejected in this craft?

Theta shuttle - identifies a seperate main reactor

So there you have it - both scientifically and by the evidence it does not appear that they harvest the energy fom their ejecta to power their ships. They use more eficient and more powerful reactors mounted elsewhere in the spaceframe to generate the energy needed for the engines in the first place. Hope this clears some up.

[Ender]

Ender wrote:

I'm on duty dude, so I'm kinda limited here. But if you want to go really indepth into the tech discussion fo fighter engienes tomorrow when I'm home I can bust out all the stuff about reactor mass:power thumbrules, mass ratios, delta v, exhaust temp, etc.

Please, do post them I've been meaning to ask you about your reactor scaling calculation as well.

*shrug* measure diameter, apply geometry. Track known power outputs, or estimated based off known engine/weaposn performance. track the two & set up a logarithmic scale. Estimate from there. pretty much it.

[Spartan]

Ender wrote:

*shrug* measure diameter, apply geometry. Track known power outputs, or estimated based off known engine/weaposn performance. track the two & set up a logarithmic scale. Estimate from there. pretty much it.

I understand the methodology, what I meant was could you post your results. I recall you saying, had made a spreadsheet. I understand ofcourse if your prefer to not disclose it.