Skip to main content

star wars - Where do TIE Fighters generate thrust?


TIE Fighters are an extremely recognizable part of the Star Wars universe, but there's something about them that bothers me.


Where do TIE Fighters generate their thrust?


Based on the way TIE Fighters move in the battlefield, you would think they operate similarly to most other Star Wars universe propulsion ships.
They have thrusters in the back to push the craft forward, yet they can move along an X and Y axis.
An example being whenever the Millennium Falcon or an X-Wing takes off after being docked or “parked”. They rise up vertically into the air, rotate around, and then blast off using the thrusters on the back of their ship.
These ships have obvious ion engines that display a bright glow where the thrust is coming from.
Imperial Cruisers use these glowing propultion systems, as seen here: enter image description here
However, in the same picture, you see some TIE Fighters heading towards the Cruiser.
They don't have any glowing propulsion spots.

Here is a better look at the back end of a TIE Fighter:
enter image description here
This part of the ship does not glow when it is flying around in space.
So, back to the original question: Where do TIE Fighters generate their thrust?


TIE stands for "Twin Ion Engine".
Ion Engines contain "no moving parts".
"All TIE series starfighters had two or more ion engine outlets..."



Answer



The little red spots on the TIEs in the first picture are the main engine outlets. They are clearer here:


enter image description here



The second picture doesn't show the engines well because the engines do not appear to be powered. The two pieces on the central cockpit ball that are the darkest appear to be in the correct position for the engines.


Although there were only two engine outlets, Wookieepedia's article on the SIE-TIE engine cites The Essential Guide to Warfare to say that the engine



utilized microparticle accelerators to agitate ionized gases to relativistic velocities, and featured independently articulated ion stream deflector manifolds for pinpoint maneuvering accuracy.



So that's how they maneuvered.


As for why the TIE engines look different than the engines on other starfighters like the X-Wing, the most likely reason is that the TIE fighter is considerably less massive than the X-Wing (the TIE design famously omitted shields and life support systems to reduce mass) and can therefore use smaller and fewer engines to achieve the same thrust and maneuverability.


It could also be that the X-Wing uses a "fusial thrust engine" rather than an ion engine like the TIE (on the other hand, the Y-Wing uses an "ion jet engine", but its engines look more like the X-Wing than the TIE fighter).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

Which Doctor Who works are canon?

I have been watching a Doctor Who documentary and they mentioned that Paul McGann did audio stories so he wasn't just a one-hit Doctor (and that there are novels featuring his Doctor as well). My question is: is Doctor Who canon just the show, or is it like Star Wars where some books and audios are canon and some are not? The documentary also shows that before 2005 they did audio stories where the Doctor is female and obviously that cannot be — not the female part, but the show doesn't count any female Doctors in episodes like The Day of the Doctor . Answer Nothing, and also everything The definitive piece of writing on Doctor Who canon is this blog post by writer Paul Cornell . I'm essentially going to be summarizing his post here, much less eloquently, but one section I want to quote directly is this: Nobody at the BBC has ever uttered a pronouncement about what is and isn't canonical. (As I'm sure they'd put it, being such enthusiasts for good grammar.) Be...