Ok so I've seen a ton of videos on this topic but I wanna

in space

>>32726036
No, Ion thrusters are notoriously weak. Good efficiency, though.

it'd be hard to convince people into wanting to be pilots of a fighter that is paper thin and only has one gun

>>32726036
>combat-capable droids were already in widespread use at least 30 years ago
>still wasting a pilot on a weak little disposable fighter that's out-gunned and out-armored by literally every kinds of fighter the enemy deploys
There isn't much point to the basic TIE fighter, even in the Star Wars setting itself.

>>32726150
It has 2 guns, and the X-Wing only has 4.

Also the paper thin things doesn't matter too much when you consider the shielded X-Wings were very prone to exploding as well. They made up for it by being faster and better maneuverability.

Frankly, if they handle anything close to how they were in the vidya gaymes, then the TIE fighter is better in so many ways.

>>32726128
Depending on the type of "Ion thruster" and fuel they choose, they can be spunky little motors.

The kind we have in use are mainly early generation, grid grate plate type, with retarded light fuel (Argon / Radon / Xenon gas).

There are more advanced models now, that don't use grid grate plates, and can use much heavier ions by vapourizing solid metals before shitting them out the nozzle.

Using the heavier ions of course means loss of efficiency over long distances, but a much greater performance in total output force.

Being that the TIE fighters are canonical light as hell, if their Ion Thrusters are super advanced versions of our bleeding edge tech now, and their fuel is dense super heavy ions.. then yeah, zoom zoom.

>>32726312
They generally have no trouble dealing with other snub fighters, even shielded ones take a few shots at most, often less than that. They're also fantastically maneuverable.

Problem with droids is that they can be taken over if someone finds the right signal, or captures the mother ship. Plus droids were never as good at making decisions or reacting to new situations as quickly as an actual pilot.

Watching them in action with your own eyes in the movies, they are horrendous pieces of shit with no redeeming value. I would never enlist in the Imperial squadron, not for a billion credits.

File: 717950main_s128e007239_226.jpg (13KB, 226x170px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 226x170px

>>32726036
>would tie fighters actually work?

no. not in the least.

1. The solar panels make no sense; a solar array of that size would barely power a home in 2017. They should be radiators instead, because spacecraft generate lots of heat and you don't want to cook your crew - but they're black and wide and can't move, so they're going to absorb tons of heat from the nearest sun. Think of sheet metal outside on a sunny day in Phoenix, except 10x worse.

2. There are no maneuver thrusters. the thing would only be able to accelerate in a straight line.

other than that, the design gets realism points for having the pilot occupy the center of gravity, and for not having air intakes on the engines like all the retarded rebel designs.

File: Chloe Moretz.jpg (50KB, 680x948px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x948px

>>32726036
I think they could work in space. Something I think the movies get wrong is the notion that the space ships always have to be moving forward. In space you can move in any direction at any time, with the only limiting factor being how fast you can move/handle.

That's why drones are so much better than human piloted craft. They can make crazy impossible maneuvers that would kill a human.

File: MoI.png (928KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1280x720px

>>32726036
>Literally every single drawing by that artist

I'm so damn happy that he's making a Halo book

>>32726536
>not having air intakes like the retarded rebel fighters

What? There are in-atmospheric battles too? No way.

Neck yourself.

>>32726312
My headcanon is that the Death Star completely devoured their military budget, so they cut corners on fighters and infantry training under the logic that every rebel planet would have to surrender soon anyway or explode.

>>32726536
> like all the retarded rebel designs.

IIRC only the X-Wings have intakes for in-atmosphere flying to keep the engines cool. Other starfighters generally take a massive performance hit.

>>32726659
>What? There are in-atmospheric battles too? No way.

>sucking air into an ion engine

go back to school you fucking nematode

>>32726536
>2. There are no maneuver thrusters. the thing would only be able to accelerate in a straight line.

The ion engines are gimballed, their nozzles can adjust from center by over ±30 degrees.

They then did the same with the blasters on later models, because wholly shit why do we need to steer the whole Force damned TIE to get on target.

>>32726711
>IIRC only the X-Wings have intakes for in-atmosphere flying to keep the engines cool

there are no exhaust points for the intakes, though - which means the air is being compressed and pushed out of the exhaust nozzle, which would generate tons of heat.

>>32726439
Zoom zoom sure... when stacked against other ion engines.

So maybe 0.01m/s^2 of acceleration. Fucking zippy for ion engines.

>>32726748
>The ion engines are gimballed, their nozzles can adjust from center by over ±30 degrees.

...oh god, they would never be able to slow down.

>>32726312
Most models of TIEs don't even have life support either. In fact the Empire's strategy with the TIE is to just swarm the enemy with overwhelming numbers which makes them not being drones even sillier. Of course this shit was thought up way before the idea of a drone fighter or even drones in general were very common.