Could we make a TIE fly?

[Howedar]

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.

Why do you think TIEs are very light compared to modern aircraft? They have repulsors, some sort of inertia-canceling system, and almost arbitrarily powerful engines. The only motivation to keep TIEs lightweight would be economic, and the weight economic "sweet spot" is a hell of a lot heavier than a modern-day aircraft.

[PeZook]

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.

Well, a TIE frame would not necessarily have a good weight to strenght ratio. It's ultra-strong, but it's not necessary for it to be ultra-light.

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.

Well, that's true - the OP just asks if we could make it fly, not if it would make any sense to actually try. Conceeded - it's another matter entirely.

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.

It would have numerous pieces of earth-tech bolted onto the hull (assuming we could even cut into the TIE frame to mount them). It wouldn't exactly be a stable construction. It would be prone to loosing those extra bits, since they won't be integrated with the airframe - so it's survivability will not be all that high, since it's the soft bits that make it fly.

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?

It may be an important goal, but a captured pilot is still useless (so if the pilot has a high chance of getting captured, a 100% survival rate is useless).
Remember - a CAS aircraft will alway be close to the front line, and will most likely be shot down near the enemy. The pilot will have a high survival rate, but also a high chance of getting killed or captured after getting out of the armored ball.

[Winston Blake]

Why do you think TIEs are very light compared to modern aircraft? They have repulsors, some sort of inertia-canceling system, and almost arbitrarily powerful engines. The only motivation to keep TIEs lightweight would be economic, and the weight economic "sweet spot" is a hell of a lot heavier than a modern-day aircraft.

I don't know, I was going by the OP:

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)

Well, a TIE frame would not necessarily have a good weight to strenght ratio. It's ultra-strong, but it's not necessary for it to be ultra-light.

See above.

It would have numerous pieces of earth-tech bolted onto the hull (assuming we could even cut into the TIE frame to mount them). It wouldn't exactly be a stable construction. It would be prone to loosing those extra bits, since they won't be integrated with the airframe - so it's survivability will not be all that high, since it's the soft bits that make it fly.

I don't know where you're getting all this from, how can we possibly know that it would 'lose bits' due to 'unstable construction'? We don't even know the limits on the budget for this international uber-alien-tech project.

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?

It may be an important goal, but a captured pilot is still useless (so if the pilot has a high chance of getting captured, a 100% survival rate is useless).
Remember - a CAS aircraft will alway be close to the front line, and will most likely be shot down near the enemy. The pilot will have a high survival rate, but also a high chance of getting killed or captured after getting out of the armored ball.

I admit that I have no idea how often such pilots get captured, versus having friendly forces go in and save them a la Black Hawk Down.

[PeZook]

See above.

Ah, I see. I'd missed that.

It would have numerous pieces of earth-tech bolted onto the hull (assuming we could even cut into the TIE frame to mount them). It wouldn't exactly be a stable construction. It would be prone to loosing those extra bits, since they won't be integrated with the airframe - so it's survivability will not be all that high, since it's the soft bits that make it fly.

I don't know where you're getting all this from, how can we possibly know that it would 'lose bits' due to 'unstable construction'? We don't even know the limits on the budget for this international uber-alien-tech project.

Well, let me explain: The TIE ball flies only thanks to the fact that it had to have things attached to it in order to be aerodynamic (and have any engines at all) - Since we had to attach those things to it, it wouldn't be as rugged and structurally sound as an airplane that was designed from the ground up.

The way I see it, the best way to make it fly would be to design a normal airplane, that would accomodate a ball-sized cockpit. Then attach the ball to it. So answering the question if we could make a TIE fly: Yes, we probably could, if we could cut into the frame.
What I am arguing here with my point is that the utility of such a project would be questionable, for the following reasons:

1) The aircraft flies due to Earth-tech, which is mounted outside the super-strong shell. Therefore, a hit would damage it just as easily as any other airplane, except for the cockpit. Even if it limps back to base, it's still out, and any advantages disappear 'till it gets repaired.

2) Visibility from a TIE cockpit sucks

3) It's just one airplane, and even if it can carry some more missiles or more gun ammo, it's not exactly a war-winning device. It would probably cost less to buy a few JSF's, AC-130's or restart the A-10.

4) Even a 100% survival rate for the pilot doesn't outweigh the fact that his unique aircraft was shot down/damaged and he won't fly until the ball is recovered and the plane repaired/rebuilt.

I admit that I have no idea how often such pilots get captured, versus having friendly forces go in and save them a la Black Hawk Down.

Well, now that I think about it, a CAS pilot actually has less chance of getting captured, since he flies close to the frontline and has friendlies closer. On the other hand, he flies close to the frontline, so there's a lot of alert people with guns around. Either way, evading capture, or even post-crash survival is far from certain. The TIE ball will save him from injury in the plane, but won't do anything more - not even protect from impact.

[Winston Blake]

Well, let me explain: The TIE ball flies only thanks to the fact that it had to have things attached to it in order to be aerodynamic (and have any engines at all) - Since we had to attach those things to it, it wouldn't be as rugged and structurally sound as an airplane that was designed from the ground up.

For the same budget.

The way I see it, the best way to make it fly would be to design a normal airplane, that would accomodate a ball-sized cockpit. Then attach the ball to it. So answering the question if we could make a TIE fly: Yes, we probably could, if we could cut into the frame.

That's good, also we could use the side panels as wing armour.

What I am arguing here with my point is that the utility of such a project would be questionable, for the following reasons:

But it's still perfectly possible to make a TIE useful isn't it? Even if it's fucked up.

1) The aircraft flies due to Earth-tech, which is mounted outside the super-strong shell. Therefore, a hit would damage it just as easily as any other airplane, except for the cockpit. Even if it limps back to base, it's still out, and any advantages disappear 'till it gets repaired.

In my original idea, the weight saving due to the light frame lets you use better Earth-tech (e.g. more armour).

2) Visibility from a TIE cockpit sucks

So? This makes a useful TIE impossible how?

3) It's just one airplane, and even if it can carry some more missiles or more gun ammo, it's not exactly a war-winning device. It would probably cost less to buy a few JSF's, AC-130's or restart the A-10.

Where did I say it's a war winning device?

4) Even a 100% survival rate for the pilot doesn't outweigh the fact that his unique aircraft was shot down/damaged and he won't fly until the ball is recovered and the plane repaired/rebuilt.

Yet such a high survival rate is still something unusual, isn't it? Something worth remarking about the CAS-TIE? Also, I mentioned before that being able to use better Earth-tech due to weight-saving would make it harder to shoot down.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Do you agree that it would actually be possible to turn a TIE into an aircraft with a purpose, or not?

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

Technically feasible to make use of a TIE? yes

Practical? No

I'd rather spend a hundred years and a hundred billion dollars figuring out how to mass produce whatever wonder material its made of than spend a hundred million dollars and five years making one aircraft that provides a substantial boost in pilot survivability by taking inevitable hits to maneuverability, logistical support and 'real' combat effectiveness.

[Winston Blake]

Technically feasible to make use of a TIE? yes

Practical? No

I'd rather spend a hundred years and a hundred billion dollars figuring out how to mass produce whatever wonder material its made of than spend a hundred million dollars and five years making one aircraft that provides a substantial boost in pilot survivability by taking inevitable hits to maneuverability, logistical support and 'real' combat effectiveness.

Unfortunately, this thread isn't about reverse engineering a TIE, it's about whether we could make a TIE fly.

Also, 100 million dollars would make it less than a third of the cost of an F-22, and if they only made one F-22, it'd would have cost over 28 billion dollars. Even the U.S. alone has money to burn on even a conventional aircraft project.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

third of the cost of one F-22? how much do you think an F-22 costs? becasue I haven't even seen the average program cost per aircraft estimates go as high as 300 million per unit.

but anyway, any fighter based on the one TIE hull we get is going to be low on maneuverability and high on maintenance/logistics strain, not worth it even if you have the money to burn

[Winston Blake]

third of the cost of one F-22? how much do you think an F-22 costs? becasue I haven't even seen the average program cost per aircraft estimates go as high as 300 million per unit.

By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development, with an additional $34 billion spent on actually procuring the aircraft. This will result in a cost of about $339 million per aircraft including program.

($28B + $34B) / 183 units.

but anyway, any fighter based on the one TIE hull we get is going to be low on maneuverability and high on maintenance/logistics strain, not worth it even if you have the money to burn

I agree, but I think my idea stands within the limits of the OP.

[Shroom Man 777]

Uhhh...TIE helicopter, anyone?

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

same problems as TIE CAS fighter only more so becasue helicopters are inherently more logistics intensive than airplanes.

[PeZook]

Well, let me explain: The TIE ball flies only thanks to the fact that it had to have things attached to it in order to be aerodynamic (and have any engines at all) - Since we had to attach those things to it, it wouldn't be as rugged and structurally sound as an airplane that was designed from the ground up.

For the same budget.

Yeah, but what's the point of spendning ungodly amounts of money on making the thing fly?

That's good, also we could use the side panels as wing armour.

If we could cut them up into pieces, yes, that would be a good idea. A very good idea, in fact.

But it's still perfectly possible to make a TIE useful isn't it? Even if it's fucked up.

Well, yeah. I'm not arguing that it's impossible, just impractical.

In my original idea, the weight saving due to the light frame lets you use better Earth-tech (e.g. more armour).

I suppose it depends on what kind of weight saving we're talking about. Though there are things you just can't armor, like control surfaces or parts of the engines.

So? This makes a useful TIE impossible how?

Again, doesn't make it impossible, just highly impractical.

Where did I say it's a war winning device?

You didn't, it's just an argument that the investment in a flying TIE is impractical, rather than impossible. It would have to offer a very pronounced advantage to whoever fielded it to be practical.

Yet such a high survival rate is still something unusual, isn't it? Something worth remarking about the CAS-TIE? Also, I mentioned before that being able to use better Earth-tech due to weight-saving would make it harder to shoot down.

Perhaps. OK, I'll concede that it may be possible to up-armor the TIE-plane so it won't be as easy to shoot down as pure earth-tech planes (especially with the wing panel idea). I'm still not sure converting it this way would really justify the budget.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Do you agree that it would actually be possible to turn a TIE into an aircraft with a purpose, or not?

Yes, I agree with that. My point is that it's pointless to do so.

Concerning costs: You would basically have to undergo the same R&D cost as for any other fighter, possibly lower since you could re-use existing avionics and maybe the engines. Re-using the avionics could easily half the costs, though.

The TIE helicopter suffers from the exact same problems like the jet-TIE.

[Winston Blake]

For the same budget.

Yeah, but what's the point of spendning ungodly amounts of money on making the thing fly?

Because it's the title of the thread.

But it's still perfectly possible to make a TIE useful isn't it? Even if it's fucked up.

Well, yeah. I'm not arguing that it's impossible, just impractical.

I agree that making alien uber-technology do the opposite of what it's supposed to do does tend to be impractical.

[Marko Dash]

I know the moment I had this idea that practicality was out the window, so forget practicality.

The image that's been sitting in my head varies between two basic designs.

the first one is to hollow out the pylons, cut the frame until a solid mesh is at the leading and trailing edges, as the tie will no longer be needing to handle the kind of Gs it would have as a space superiority fighter this shouldn't compromise it integrity too much. fill this hollow area with one or more airfoils, if you optimize said airfoils for low speed high lift they should keep the craft in the air. if these wouldn't be enough to lift it some of the ideas from design 2 can be added

Design two focusses more on having the tie held aloft by a combination of vertically and horizontally mounted thrust vectoring engines. One or two engines may be able to fit vertically in the rear of the cockpit wall.
The best place to mount engines on the exterior of the craft would be on top of the pylons nestled as close to the panels as possible, this would give them some protection from ground fire.

In ether of these cases fly-by-wire computer assisted controls would be absolutely necessary, if they can keep the f-117 with the correct pointy end facing forward it shouldn't be to much of a stretch to keep the tie stable.

Fuel for ether case could be stored in the panels themselves, as the second design is a bit more thirsty drop tanks could be mounted under the pylons.

Armament could vary a bit but both designs would use twin 20mm gatling guns in the same space where the laser cannons would sit, both designs could also have hard points under the pylons. The second design could also mount tube fired missiles into the hollowed out pylons or more fuel.


To refine this a little bit lets say that so can cut the armor, but it requires dedicated tools to do this so they would have to be hauled to wherever the tie is based at.

Let us also assume that you have an unlimited budget, but due to certain main ingredients not being found on earth you cannot produce more of the armor alloy.