TIE Atmospheric Capabilities

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 09:03pm

Which is why we have to turn to the EU for the info.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-09 09:17pm

Except that EU sources are contradictory, it would seem. Earlier in the thread, people were citing EU sources to claim that TIEs have poor atmospheric performance, while later posts propone excellent atmospheric performance for TIEs.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-09 09:20pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Except that EU sources are contradictory, it would seem. Earlier in the thread, people were citing EU sources to claim that TIEs have poor atmospheric performance, while later posts propone excellent atmospheric performance for TIEs.

No, they are just differing interpretations of the same material. It is possible for different models of TIE fighters to have different handling characteristics, and it is possible for what one person considers to be excellent maneuverability to be considered pathetic by somebody else.

I think that, as the aerodynamic problems associated with TIE fighters became more widely considered, people's ideas about TIE maneuverability went up, even though their actual performance did not change. It just became more impressive, but TIE's did not suddenly gain maneuverability in the atmosphere. They are worse than X-Wings, but not by the huge margin one would expect by examining their models.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 09:20pm

What? Who said they're excellent?

And if you don't like the EU, too bad, there's just no evidence either way in the movies.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-09 09:25pm

IG-88E wrote:What? Who said they're excellent?

And if you don't like the EU, too bad, there's just no evidence either way in the movies.

Take that up with Mr. Bean.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 09:36pm

Mr Bean wrote:Terribly according to Wedge, According to him they have terrible Yaw Problems(Bad turning) and manviors they can pull in space with ease will rip them apart under atmosphere

You were saying?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-09 09:38pm

I apologize, I misquoted. It was actually Master of Ossus who claimed good atmospheric performance. *smacks himself before anyone else can*

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-09 09:41pm

All he said was that TIEs were slightly less manueverable than X-wings.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-09 09:58pm

So, based on what you've seen on-screen, what's your verdict on Type XI (Insurrection) shuttlecraft and the Scout Data used?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-09 09:59pm

IG-88E wrote:All he said was that TIEs were slightly less manueverable than X-wings.

Which, essentially, makes them nearly worthless. They have less firepower and no shields, which already puts them in troubled waters against the X-Wing, but the loss of maneuverability advantage invariably destroys their combat chances during one-on-one, and perhaps even two-on-one battles.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-09 10:03pm

Terrible Yaw problems means no side to side turning over a certian amount

Prehaps one wo knows could kindly calulate the stresses of a 60 G Turn in Space VS in Atomsphere

Say on a 10 Foot Plate of Steel