Tie fighter/interceptor vs other fighters

[starfury]

How would the mainline imperial fighters fare against the mediun/light fighters of other universes

like the EF starfury, centauri fighter, minbari fighter of b5

Freespace Terran light fighters/shivan light fighters/vasudan serapis/horus

and never to leave out the SA-43 hammerhead of Space: above and beyond

I posted this as I wanted to dispell the long lingering myth of the "dispoable" tie fighter, the Tie fighter should at least be able to destoyr easily the fragile light fighters of other navies.

[Mr Bean]

Asumming they don't run away(At warp/hypdrive, whatnot) I'm predicting a soild win for that Interceptor depending on whos flying it

[SirNitram]

Only fighter I know with the maneuverability and speed is the Homeworld 'Arrow' Scout. Flipturns, baby. And insane afterburners.

[Master of Ossus]

TIE fighters are considered disposable only by SW standards. The Earth Alliance and even the Minbari would kill for such starfighters. The SA-43 would similarly be defeated. It does not have the maneuverability, speed, or firepower of a TIE. PERHAPS the Descent starfighters would stand a chance, but I am not entirely sure.

As an aside, the Starfury most prominently featured in B5 is actually a heavy fighter. There are several variations on the Starfury, and the one that fights most often in combat is a heavy one. The light ones only have two cannon, and are used only for recon and scouting purposes. They are almost never seen in the show.

[phongn]

Only fighter I know with the maneuverability and speed is the Homeworld 'Arrow' Scout. Flipturns, baby. And insane afterburners.

Greater speed is usually more of an asset than maneuverability - witness the USN fighter tactics versus the IJN's Zeros - we had speed, they had maneuverability, and it turned out speed was the victor.

[phongn]

Anyways, the TIE series probably beats up on every other type in mainstream SF.

Of course, I'd rather take a B-Wing and go hunting capships, but that's just me

[Howedar]

Only fighter I know with the maneuverability and speed is the Homeworld 'Arrow' Scout. Flipturns, baby. And insane afterburners.

Greater speed is usually more of an asset than maneuverability - witness the USN fighter tactics versus the IJN's Zeros - we had speed, they had maneuverability, and it turned out speed was the victor.

We also had durability and firepower. It wasn't simply maneuverability vs. speed.

[phongn]

Only fighter I know with the maneuverability and speed is the Homeworld 'Arrow' Scout. Flipturns, baby. And insane afterburners.

Greater speed is usually more of an asset than maneuverability - witness the USN fighter tactics versus the IJN's Zeros - we had speed, they had maneuverability, and it turned out speed was the victor.

We also had durability and firepower. It wasn't simply maneuverability vs. speed.

True, though the Zero gained that maneuverability partially from a lack of durability and firepower (which adds mass).

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, most of the Zero's maneuverability was due to its relatively advanced flight control equipment. The lack of armament and armor was primarily caused by the Japanese's lack of powerful engines, like the ones that graced American and German aircraft of the era. When Americans captured a Zero in Alaska, they actually incorporated many of its flight control devices into their own aircraft. These aircraft benefited from the American engines, and were faster, better protected, and more heavily armed than the Japanese carrier-aircraft. That was part of the reason the Americans were able to win the carrier war so easily. Their aircraft, later in the war, were far better in nearly every way.

[starfury]

Anyways, the TIE series probably beats up on every other type in mainstream SF.

[/quote]

yeah, I couldn't belive that in the past, I used to spout the crap about the SF > Tie fighter which many fivers still cling too, including Koloth on the b5 board who like captin Kruger here is actually a very reasonable sci-fi debater.

[Master of Ossus]

The problems the Starfury has in comparison with TIE's is that the starfury has such weak yields on its weapons compared to them, and its acceleration is weak (this may, actually, be because it does not have an inertial compensator or similar).

[LordChaos]

Actually, most of the Zero's maneuverability was due to its relatively advanced flight control equipment. The lack of armament and armor was primarily caused by the Japanese's lack of powerful engines, like the ones that graced American and German aircraft of the era. When Americans captured a Zero in Alaska, they actually incorporated many of its flight control devices into their own aircraft. These aircraft benefited from the American engines, and were faster, better protected, and more heavily armed than the Japanese carrier-aircraft. That was part of the reason the Americans were able to win the carrier war so easily. Their aircraft, later in the war, were far better in nearly every way.

Actualy, no.

the Zero's manouverbility was mostly due to it's light construction and wing loading (as was it's long range). The low powered engine was part of the package deal (japan did have a few higher powered engines, used in some of their more capable aircraft).

When US engineers were able to examine a Zero (found upside down (off the coast of alaska IIRC) and not captured), they found that it was a typical mid thirties fighter, with light armorment, light constructiona, and high manouverbility.

Yes, there were a few "tricks" used to improve that manouverbility, but the main reason it existed to be improved in the first place was the light construction and the wing loading of the zero.

Now, you want a plane that gave Allied designers a serrious case of awe, that would be the FW-190. When one landed in the UK by mistake, examination of it by allied deisgners made them feel rather inferior (at the time, not even the vaunted spitfire was a match for the 190).

[Master of Ossus]

I agree, German fighters were superior to their Allied counterparts at the time, and the FW-190 was one of the best of the bunch.

The Zero that was discovered (I called it captured, but "found" would be an appropriate term), did help the Americans to improve their own aircraft. The Zero was superior to most aircraft available to the Americans at the very beginning of the war, and by the end it was far outclassed by American planes. You are right, a heavy Zero would not maneuver nearly as nimbly as the one that was built. I was trying to say that MUCH of the Zero's capabilities were due to its flight control system, and that its abilities were limited by the Japanese Mitsubishi engines that the Zero used.

BTW, which aircraft in the Japanese military (any branch) had powerful engines? I have always been under the impression that the Japanese engines were considerably less powerful than the ones that America, Britain, and Germany used during WWII.

[LordChaos]

The Zero that was discovered (I called it captured, but "found" would be an appropriate term), did help the Americans to improve their own aircraft. The Zero was superior to most aircraft available to the Americans at the very beginning of the war, and by the end it was far outclassed by American planes. You are right, a heavy Zero would not maneuver nearly as nimbly as the one that was built. I was trying to say that MUCH of the Zero's capabilities were due to its flight control system, and that its abilities were limited by the Japanese Mitsubishi engines that the Zero used.

I wouldn't say "superior". Different only. It's only superior trait was it's range. While it was more manouverable then (for example) the F4F, the F4F had more firepower, more speed (yes, it was faster), more armor, and was overall a match for the zero with an equal pilot.

THAT was what made the zero feared in the early part of the war. The IJN average IJN pilot of the period was superior in ACM (air combat manouvering... dogfighting) to the average USN pilot of the same time. However, the IJN training model could not keep up with the demand of war.

As for it's manouverbility, as I stated already, it had much more to do with the aircraft's light build, it's wing loading (low? I can't remember, and my sources are elsewere), and the thinking of "manouverbilty over everything" that ran through the japanese millitary at the time (as well as that of the Italian millitary of early WWII). Manouverbilty is nice, but it's not the end all be all.

BTW, which aircraft in the Japanese military (any branch) had powerful engines? I have always been under the impression that the Japanese engines were considerably less powerful than the ones that America, Britain, and Germany used during WWII.

How powerfull you want? Here's a few..

The Aichi B7A Ryusei "Grace" torpedo bomber had a 1825hp engine (late war delivery. first flight in '42).
The Kawanishi N1K1-j and 2-J Shiden "George" had a 1990hp engine (18-cylinder two row radial). Again, we are talking 2nd half of the war. (for comparison, the F4U Corsair spent most of it's WWII time with 2,000 - 2,300 hp).
The Mitsubishi J2m Raiden "Jack" had a 1820hp engine. It's first flight was before that of the F4U's first flight, and it entered service about the same time.
The Nakajima B6N Tenzan "Jill") had a 1870hp engine. Again, it's first flight was 1st quarter '42, and it's service delivery was early 43.
The Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate "Frank" had a 1900hp engine. (first flight : march 43. Delivery Aperil 44)
The Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" had 2 1530hp engines, and entered service BEFORE pearl harber (actualy, entered in april of 41).

There were others, but that's what a quick glance through my only (avilable at this time) reference spots. The japanese aircraft designers had engines of comparible power to the US designs (at least for a part of the war), but their design phillosiphy was different.

[Master of Ossus]

You are quite correct. In retrospect, it is astonishing how well American airmen did over Marianas. And you are right, the Japanese did not change tactics nearly as quickly as they should have during the war, or as quickly as the Americans did.