Could we make a TIE fly?

Marko Dash · Post by **Marko Dash** » 2006-11-08 05:48am

Not as a space superiority fighter but as a close support fighter or gunship.

Suppose we found a tie frame, its been gutted out with no advanced tech in it, however the frame itself is very lightweight and has amazing structural integrity. (it can shrug
off most cannon fire and missile hits with ease)
Could we, given modern thrust vectoring engines and fly by wire controls, keep it airborne and controllable?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-11-08 06:15am

The phrase "flies well for a brick" springs to mind.

Give something enough power and it will "fly". See a thread on someone making a working model of the Enterprise-Nil (can't be arsed to dog it up).

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-11-08 06:16am

LOL, typo (I meant DIG it up).

Anyhow, to clarify: it could be made airborne, but it wouldn't be practical.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-11-08 06:19am

The fact that TIEs fly in atmosphere in sci-fi is laughable. They have all the aerodynamics of a farmyard barn, so this bullshit about doing high Mach manoeuvres that make the F-22A look slow is hilarious.

The only way around that is shaped fields producing an ovoid shape, but that's not exactly anymore practical than SIF fields in ST ships.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-11-08 06:31am

Making the E-nil fly is no problem, I made one of depron with a prop mounted on it.... Flies great, because it got surface.

The Millenium Falcon flies good, too, I have to finish that model by now, but that plan I use has been built adozen times, and all flew well.

A tie would only fly if it is rotated 90 degrees and flown with a high AOA. And don't even try to imagine the amount of thrust you would need...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2006-11-08 06:38am

Was the Tie Fighter ever seen in atmosphere in the movies? (Sorry if this is a dumb question but i don´t follow the Sci Fi and Fantasy section of this Board.)

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2006-11-08 06:49am

salm wrote:Was the Tie Fighter ever seen in atmosphere in the movies? (Sorry if this is a dumb question but i don´t follow the Sci Fi and Fantasy section of this Board.)

You've never seen Empire Strikes Back?!?!?! SACRALIDGE!!!

Short answer...yes. Bespin. TESB.

Marko Dash · Post by **Marko Dash** » 2006-11-08 06:55am

What if you give it a thrust vectoring engine mounted at about an 85 degree angle and have rotating thrust ducts as high as possible up on the sides? In the op I mentioned that the frame itself is very lightweight while being incredibly strong, so you can fit it with any equipment necessary that would fit inside the main ball and pylon struts.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2006-11-08 06:59am

Dargos wrote:
salm wrote:Was the Tie Fighter ever seen in atmosphere in the movies? (Sorry if this is a dumb question but i don´t follow the Sci Fi and Fantasy section of this Board.)

You've never seen Empire Strikes Back?!?!?! SACRALIDGE!!!

Short answer...yes. Bespin. TESB.

Ah, yes, i´ve seen it but can´t remember. I usually forget stuff in movies quite fast. And it´s been quite some time that i´ve seen the Empires Strikes Back.

Sikon · Post by **Sikon** » 2006-11-08 07:17am

The lack of wings providing lift would make such relatively impractical without changing its shape.

For providing 1g of thrust for vertical-takeoff and flight, regular rocket engines would max. out at a few hundred sec. Isp, so they could only keep it airborne for at most minutes. If jet engines thrusting downwards were used instead, it might be kept airborne for longer but still no more than on the order of a hour at most (equivalent to having a few thousand sec. Isp). Observe the problem with the preceding compact vertical lift options is not making it fly but rather making it fly for much time before refueling.

To lower the energy consumption per unit of lift force to allow a decent flight time, one needs to not depend upon high-velocity exhaust for vertical lift. One ends up instead adding much equipment extending out of the original frame, converting it into an airplane or helicopter. Maybe that could be worthwhile, but probably the armor protection benefit would be too limited since the added wings or large rotors and other equipment would be vulnerable.

Most likely, a military would just try cutting it up into pieces to use the material.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-11-08 07:57am

Pretty simple, enough thrust and anything will fly.

Re-Model airplane builders and Snoopy's Doghouse(A while back at an airshow I saw in person a double engine model planed which is just an actual doghouse with a stuffed snoopy atop it and a little pair of stubby wings running along the bottom(No more than three inch s) True it was made of plastic, but if a box with fins for wings can be made to fly, anything can.

(Just perhaps not fly.. "well")

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-11-08 12:32pm

The F-4 Flies, the F-15E flies (especially the F-15E).
Yes you could make a TIE frame fly with modern technology, just strap some Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engines on it and throttle up. I'd be concerned about the TIE fighters ability to hold fuel though.

Major Maxillary · Post by **Major Maxillary** » 2006-11-08 05:28pm

If a bumblebee can fly, if the F-117 can fly, and if the Spruce goose could fly, then a TIE could fly.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-11-08 05:41pm

Attach a helicopter shaped object with rapidly rotating wings attached to the top of that, and maybe it will fly if the TIE is light enough.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-11-08 06:09pm

Cannonballs can fly. That's not the problem. The problem is getting the thing to fly and be economical about it.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-11-08 08:06pm

Rather than trying to use the original airframe, you could build an aircraft around the TIE fighter. Stick wings on each side and a fuselage over the ball. Then you've got the side panels as vertical stabilising fins just asking to have streamlining bits and control flaps attached to them. The super-strong ball acts as an invincible 'armoured bathtub' a la the A-10 Warthog. Engines can be nestled in between the ball's upper side and the side panels for extra protection.

The sides could be used as impenetrable fuel tanks, since the supertech is gone and they're empty now. The fact that the strong, yet lightweight TIE acts as the skeleton means you can put more weight into wing armour, armament, etc. I don't know anything about aircraft, but I assume there's a structural frame that must normally weigh a lot in order to be strong.

Anyway, that's the only way I see a TIE being useful, modified to make an 'A-10 from hell'.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-11-08 11:51pm

RedImperator wrote:Cannonballs can fly. That's not the problem. The problem is getting the thing to fly and be economical about it.

that just made me think: TIE cannonballs!

The problem with the TIE fighter is, it's shape isn't very aerodynamic. This probably isn't a concern for something intended to operate in space, and it's probably not a concern for a civilization that has access to a power source *denser* than anti-matter. However, for us poor backward primitives, whose means of locomotion involve chemical propellants, we have to go to great lengths to get the most out of what we do have. Since the TIE fighter doesn't have those nice features that we put on present day aircraft, the short answer is that even if we did manage to get it flying, it would at most be an air show novelty.
Finally, jet aircraft carry many thousands of pounds of fuel. In fact, aircraft can be likened to flying fuel tanks, because the energy to keep them aloft (and move around at 500+ mph) consumes a lot of fuel. I don't know how big the TIE fighter's fuel tanks are, but it just doesn't look very promising.

Certainly, if you were so inclined, you could just strap on fuel tanks and jet engines until your defense budget ran out, but you'd probably just be better off simply duplicating the material (if it is so great as the OP suggests), and building a contemporary aircraft out of that.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-11-08 11:53pm

Winston Blake wrote:...snip...Anyway, that's the only way I see a TIE being useful, modified to make an 'A-10 from hell'.

Problem with that is, the outer fuselage is still made of vulnerable terrestrial materials. If for some reason that gets shot out from under you, you're really just sitting in a very well armored meteor.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-11-09 12:19am

Major Maxillary wrote:If a bumblebee can fly, if the F-117 can fly, and if the Spruce goose could fly, then a TIE could fly.

Interesting logic. All of those can fly because it's aerodynamically possible for them to do so, but their ability to fly in no way supports the ability to make a TIE fly...

It seems like you're making an argument out of ignorance. You don't grasp how a bumblebee can fly so to you that means anything can fly.

Though I guess it all depends on how we define "fly"...

If you mean fly through the air till gravity catches up with it, or it tears itself apart then yes it can fly. If you mean fly in the sense that planes do then no they can't.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-11-09 01:19am

I believe this was touched upon in one of the Rogue Squadron books, a X-wing did some crazy maneveur in atmosphere and the pursuing TIE tried to pull off a right-angle turn to follow; snapped both solar panels clean off, resulting trajectory predictable.

The TIE can 'fly' because of repulsorlifts; it has essentially zero lifting surfaces. There's no way you can make it fly as it is, with modern Earth technology, without adding extensive external modifications. Rotors, VTOL engines, whatever; you could perhaps make it into some sort of hovering gun platform if the laser cannons still work. Otherwise, it's going to be as viable as a brick.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-11-09 05:01am

wilfulton wrote:
Winston Blake wrote:...snip...Anyway, that's the only way I see a TIE being useful, modified to make an 'A-10 from hell'.
Problem with that is, the outer fuselage is still made of vulnerable terrestrial materials. If for some reason that gets shot out from under you, you're really just sitting in a very well armored meteor.

Still better than an unarmoured meteor. A conventional aircraft would be more likely to have already been defeated completely. I guess you could add a parachute to the ball, and have the ball able to 'eject' by explosively ejecting all the terrestrial parts away.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-11-09 10:01am

Winston Blake wrote: Still better than an unarmoured meteor. A conventional aircraft would be more likely to have already been defeated completely. I guess you could add a parachute to the ball, and have the ball able to 'eject' by explosively ejecting all the terrestrial parts away.

At this moment, though, it becomes nothing more than a really weird CAS aircraft, with precisely zero advantage over currently existing ones, in addition to horrible overcomplication of the necessary mods. It can be shot down just as easily as any other airplane, except the pilot would probably not get killed. A "non-complete" defeat is just as good if the airplane won't fly again, will it? It won't even be armed better than current CAS aircraft, since all SW tech is gone from the frame.

Just captured by the enemy.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-11-09 10:01am

Ghetto edit: "The pilot wouldn't get killed, just captured by the enemy." <- that's what it was supposed to read like

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-11-09 11:28pm

PeZook wrote:
Winston Blake wrote: Still better than an unarmoured meteor. A conventional aircraft would be more likely to have already been defeated completely. I guess you could add a parachute to the ball, and have the ball able to 'eject' by explosively ejecting all the terrestrial parts away.
At this moment, though, it becomes nothing more than a really weird CAS aircraft, with precisely zero advantage over currently existing ones, in addition to horrible overcomplication of the necessary mods.

It depends on whether or not the weight saving due to the ultra-light-ultra-strong TIE frame allows equipment is good enough. It might have better capabilities than current aircraft if it can mount equipment that would otherwise be too heavy (e.g. more rockets). I have no idea how significant such a saving would be, or if such aircraft even have a skeletal frame.

Anyway, this is about making a TIE fly. Having 'zero advantage over current CAS aircraft' means being just as useful, versus being a worthless flying brick.

It can be shot down just as easily as any other airplane, except the pilot would probably not get killed. A "non-complete" defeat is just as good if the airplane won't fly again, will it? It won't even be armed better than current CAS aircraft, since all SW tech is gone from the frame. The pilot wouldn't get killed, just captured by the enemy.

If it's got the survivability to fall just short of limping back to base, where a normal aircraft would have been shredded into a fireball, then it's more likely to be able to come back unscathed where a normal aircraft would fail to come back at all. Also, isn't saving the pilot an important goal? Isn't it better for them to survive and maybe get captured rather than simply die?

Sikon · Post by **Sikon** » 2006-11-09 11:51pm

Winston Blake wrote: Anyway, this is about making a TIE fly. Having 'zero advantage over current CAS aircraft' means being just as useful, versus being a worthless flying brick.

Compare to another option:

Instead cut the frame material into pieces, joining overlapping plates of it with some terrestrial titanium-alloy material, or, depending upon thickness, entirely embed them in terrestrial metal.

Such would be a bit expensive, but less than a billion-dollar B-2 bomber, for example.

If lightweight enough, such might allow the production of one or more specially designed small aircraft extremely resistant to enemy fire, such that a round or piece of missile shrapnel hitting any part of its surface would run into the Imperial material.

If not, then at least other applications could be found. If nothing else, make a nearly invulnerable tank with the material embedded within its composite armor.