Talk: T-65 X-wing starfighter/Legends

Back to page |
< Talk:T-65 X-wing starfighter
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "T-65 X-wing starfighter/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Credits

See credits from the original Wikipedia article.

Why the move?

I just wanted to let everyone know that I moved the article based on the name listed in the Databank - http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/xwing/index.html.

  • Practically speaking, though, isn't it easier to link to "X-wing"? -- Aidje 19:40, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • That's true, and there's a redirect there that points to here. I suppose that one could argue that it'd make sense to have the the main article where most of the links point. However, it seems to me that the article's name should be whatever the official title is with redirects coming from common aliases. WhiteBoy 12:07, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
  • That makes sense. It works so long as we don't get people who want to "fix" all of the links like [[X-wing starfighter/Legends|X-wing]]. That would be kind of annoying to have people inserting piped links all over the place. I guess we just have to trust them. :-) Actually, as long as we're talking about using the full name for the article title, why not put "T-65" in there as well? Seems like that would be even more complete than the Databank's way of doing it. -- Aidje 13:18, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
    • Well, no one seems to be answering. I guess I'll move it to what I think makes more sense, and then if people disagree they'll speak up. Please don't take offense at my moving this without discussion, as I asked about it quite awhile ago. I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter if any one disagrees with the move. – Aidje talk 04:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "X-Wing" was a the common nickname for the ship, based on its appearance. The name of the article should probably be T-65 starfighter, or T-65 fighter, and then say "The T-65 space superiority fighter, commonly known as X-Wing for its open s-foil position, ..." with all proper redirects in place. --SparqMan 12:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • So essentially, all "Wing" designations are actually just nicknames? If so, remove and replace, people will just have to learn to cope with it. VT-16 14:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • So now we come to confusion: why would it be 'T-65 starfighter' rather than 'T-65 space superiority fighter'? (I mention only these two because I think they're the best choices.) The latter is certainly a more proper name, just as 'heavy blaster pistol' is in some cases more proper than 'blaster'. – Aidje talk 14:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I took the liberty of "cleaning up" all the "wing"-shipnames on the vehicle list, basically listing model and function (most of the OT fighters didn´t have class-names) and mentioning the various nicknames on the side. Some people may not like that, but then again this site was meant to be thorough and "proper". I would guess that "space superiority fighter" would be proper, while the more familiar name could be mentionind in the article itself. That should be enough, I think. certainly would be unique for a SW site. ;) VT-16 15:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • What would be unique? Our penchant for accuracy? – Aidje talk 18:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Yep, I don´t believe any site attempts to be as in-depth as this encyclopedia. Not even the OS or the TFN Encyclopedia. :) VT-16 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I say we remove the "-wing" designations at our own peril. I'm fine with adding model numbers, but if we don't leave the reader ANYTHING familiar in the title, they might think there's a problem with the redirects. That, and there should be some connection with what the reader is familiar with. Also, several craft have more than one correct model number (The BTL-S3 and BTL-A4 Y-wings, for instance). JSarek 18:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with JSarek. We should leave something familiar in the title for the readers. In addition, I don't believe "-wing" is just a nickname for most of these ships. The essential guides and all the other official sources always say "T-65 X-wing," "RZ-1 A-wing," etc. Kinda like "F-14 Tomcat" and "F/A-18 Hornet." And like JSarek said, the Y-wing has more than one designation. I think the only "-wing" name that is purely a nickname is the "V-wing" name, used for the Alpha-3 Nimbus. JimRaynor55 19:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's completely possible too. "Space superiority fighter" is a description of what it does best, but "T-65 X-Wing" is probably the best compromise. The capitalization by most sources is "X-Wing" however, not "X-wing". --SparqMan 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote now goes to 'T-65 X-wing space superiority fighter'. – Aidje talk 19:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine with me. VT-16 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was "stutter" fire.

I mean, I'm sure that was used. I'm not so sure that scatter fire wasn't the official name, but I'm pretty sure it was called stutter fire, not scatter fire.

  • If you provide a source, then we'll find out. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite a few of the New Jedi Order Books. I don't usually remember which exact words are used in a bookStar by Star is the one where XJ3s were introduced, and they had stutter fire installed in them because it worked with the other X-Wings. I guess I'll probably have to go through all of the books to be sure. Linkman95 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, then, I guess it can be changed. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Changed it. If someone sees a place where scatter fire is used, feel free to change it back Linkman95 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think it's metioned anywhere else. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So is stutter fire a new feature of the XJ series fighters or just something thar hasn't been used? Any idea? -Finlayson 04:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • New feature, they talked about how a new trigger was added to fire low powered bolts, i mean the fighters could of done this before but there would be no point in firing low powered bolts was there. Jedi Dude 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That should be mentioned, like in parathenses in the Stutter fire setting line. -Finlayson 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be faster?

It seems that Incom actually stole the speed from it's previous fighters to make the X-Wing.

  • So...? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The X-wing should INDEED be faster. According to production charts for Return of the Jedi, the T-65B has a top speed of 100MGLT. Reference: http://saxman.xwlegacy.net/Starfighters/IntroPics/ilmmglt1fromSWTC.jpg Interesting to note is that the Y-wing is just as fast as the X-wing and TIE fighter, if less maneuverable. The flow of the chart suggests the TIE fighter is somewhat less maneuverable than the X-wing (this is actually confirmed by the West End Games RPG stats, which makes the X-wing slightly more maneuverable. It wasn't until the X-wing game series that the TIE fighter became more agile). The TIE Interceptor is slightly faster than the X-wing games make it (125MGLT vs 110) and the A-wing's top speed is SIGNIFICANTLY greater, at 150MGLT. Ambaryerno 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode II Appearance.

Source/image would be nice. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, User:Rune Haako, you've proven to me that TIE Fighters are in Episode II. Now, prove it for this fighter. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Listen to the Episode II DVD Commentary during the scene with the TIE fighters.--Rune Haako 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have time to listen to it now, but I'll take your word for it. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Are you talking about the easter egg on Coruscant? I've seen those. They made low-res models of the T-65 X-wing and had it be chased down a trench-like corridor by three TIEs (obviously meant to be a reference to Luke's trench run in ANH). Since the X-wing wasn't invented till after the CW, and since we only see the three from above, I just rationalized it in-universe as one Z-95 and three Republic T.I.E.s doing patrols. ;) VT-16 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Development?

Anyone hold any support for the theory that the X-Wings were actually developed (at least initially) during the Clone Wars, as it says in the Radio dramatisation of ANH? In that Han clearly states that the X-Wings were 20 years old, I know every other source says that the X-Wings were brand new at the time of the battle of Yavin, but there is actually a work around that would be valid by all sources as well as clear up the naming issue. Essentially, the T-65A was an early test bed (possibly the one seen in AotC) that never received much attention, nor did the T-65B, except for possible use by CorSec (explaining where they got their X-Wings from, and why Han thought the fighters in the Yavin hangar were old). The Empire gradually came round to the idea, but then Incom defected along with the T-65C A1 (or T-65AC1), the fighter used at Yavin. I know that technically this would probably be considered fanon, but its a perfectly plausible, valid explanation and I think it deserves some mention, even if only as speculation in Behind the Scenes to clarify. Opinions? 95 Headhunter

  • No, the X-wing wasn't developed until during the Galactic Civil War. The X-wing in AotC was just an Easter Egg. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, may i ask what level of canonicity is afforded to the radio dramatisations, is it the same as the novelisations? Also, how else would you explain the X-Wing being the t-65C A (or AC) straight away, that certainly implies that there were prototypes at the very least, to me it speaks of prior design phases.
    • For the radio stuff, they appear to differ from the movies in places, so I'd say they're not that high on the "canon scale" in some places. As for the X-wing in AotC, it was added only as an Easter Egg, therefore saying that it's not a canonical appearance. The same goes for the TIE Fighters in there as well. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright then, that's fair enough I suppose. 95 Headhunter
        • Also, like the radio dramatizations, books are different from the movies in spots, just to let you know. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Bear this in mind: A number of sources predating West End Games all give the X-wing an age of about 20 years by the time of Yavin. It may be in the novelization as well, (been a while since I read that) and as was pointed out it was specifically mentioned in the Radio Drama. At least up until fairly recently LucasFilm's official stance was that the ONLY canonical sources were: the Films, Film Novelizations and Film Radio Dramas in that order of precedence (I think they may have amended this to the films ONLY at some point). All other sources (games, books, comics, etc) were NOT canon. By this statement, if ANY of the canon sources (which at the time included the Radio Dramas) contradicted WEG (later WotC) and its associated/derived material then canon sources in all cases MUST take precedence. This places the Radio Dramas, despite their differences from the film, quite a few levels above WEG and subsequent material based around it Incidentally, history created by Joe Johnston himself during pre-production (much of it, including blueprints, was released in the Star Wars Chronicles not long after the film came out) as part of the development of the original film also points to an age much greater than that established by West End Games and no less than 15 years old. At the very least, this discrepancy belongs in the "Behind the Scenes" section, where conflicts with canon for other vessels and concepts have been placed. 97.91.187.134 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

History J series part

  • Currently, the 3rd and 5th paragraphs in the History section both cover the introduction of the J series. I think they should be combined and moved after the paragraph about the E-wing (4th one). I'll do this edit later, unless somebody has objections. -Finlayson 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

S-Foils in Attack Position

A X-Wing can't attack with the s-foils closed, but why? Exactly what physically force prevents it from doing that? Double D 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry but where does it say s is for stability bcuz i think it would stand for spread bcuz i read somewhere that the cannons could be fired while the s foils were closed its just the attack spread would be significantly hampered and as such the attack position would the position where the cannon would be better able to hit a target (Boommer3 01:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

y cant it stand for spread(Boommer3 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

    • In one of the xwing novels , Iron Fist i believe, one of the pilots snaps off a shot with closed s foils, the problem with doing this however was that it was an extremely accurate shot. also, "s-foil" has been refered to as strike-, stabilizer, and spread foil, i think it just depends on the author but personally, i think it was intended to be stabilizer foil. hope this helps, Ugluk 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • But has it ever been called "spread-foils"? Because I doubt it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
        • In most star wars novels featuring the xwing s-foils are called stabilizer foils, in aaron allston books they are strike foils. in one of the rogue squadron video games, i think the N64 one, they are refered to as spread foils. Ugluk 14:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
          • We'll need to have that confirmed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
            • If i get a chance ill run through the game, it was either that they were called spread foils or somebody said "spread s-foils to attack position". either way, s-foil was intended to be stabilizer foil so i dont see what the big deal is. Ugluk 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, we need proof that they are/aren't called spread-foils. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
                • If somebody else has the game, i dont have time for that, many projects to do (between wookieepedia sessions of course ;)) please check. Ugluk 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Redirect from X-wing to T-65 X-wing starfighter?

Hey guys, I'm wondering why X-wing redirects to the T-65 X-wing starfighter page. I propose that the X-wing page be a disambiguation page that links to all of the X-wing subclasses.

Cheers,RelentlessRecusant 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Content Disputed

Was the original T-65 used in the Yuuzhan Vong invasion and also in the Legacy series? As in the T-65 original, not the XJ series? That's why I placed the {{Disputed}} tag on the article.

Cheers,

RelentlessRecusantJedi Order 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Any possibility of getting an update simply on the markings for the X-Wings? Red leader has one stripe, Wedge has two, etc. Perhaps an indication regarding which pilots had what, and any other significance for the markings.

  • That would be better for the actual articles of the individual X-wings, not this article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there articles for individual X-Wings? Does Wedge's X-Wing have its own entry, detailing the wing markings? I wasn't able to find a link to it from here or the Wedge article. Not even a mention in this main article of "some rebel pilots customized markings to signify..." etc etc.

Variants

  • The article fails to mention any of the letter variants such as the T-65B, which is on the Databank. I can't back this up with any sources off the top of my head, but I think the T-65B is the T-65AC1, which is also the T-65C-A1. If I'm not mistaken, the AC variants are just another name for some of the letter variants. – Brynn Alastayr 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The conflicting ID systems paragraph (last one) in the History section addresses that to some extent. -Fnlayson 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's true, I just saw that. Still, it doesn't say specifically which variants are identical to each other. I was trying to compile a complete list of variants for a project I'm working on and I was flipping through some WEG sources. Took me a while to Google some kind of confirmation that B=AC1, C=AC2, F=AC3, and I=AC4; I wish I had the (I'm guessing) WEG sourcebook to back that up though. I would guess that some of the other variants such as the Trainer fill in the D or E spots, but who knows. Interesting thing is that J starts right where it should for the XJ series, so either the AC letters are true or it was just good fanon. – Brynn Alastayr 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that is exactly what the article is saying... it's confusing because it lists the XJs as a separate series and generally does not use the T-65 designation when referring to them. If that's the case, I think the letter variant system is more accurate than the AC system, as it expresses (presumably) every variant, where AC clearly skips some (short of going to fractions). At any rate, a lot of sources use these interchangeably and it's hard to tell just which variant it's referring to unless it's explicitly listed somewhere. – Brynn Alastayr 01:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Wait, you said "which variants are identical to each other". What are you talking about? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
            • "I think the T-65B is the T-65AC1, which is also the T-65C-A1." "Took me a while to Google some kind of confirmation that B=AC1, C=AC2, F=AC3, and I=AC4." – Brynn Alastayr 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • i think someone needs to check out the T-65B page. i think someones gone a little nuts with creative license. they are calling it better than it should be. the page lists it as "faster" than other variants and giving it a top speed of 80MGLT. that page needs editing BADLY.--24.5.227.45 07:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

The X

If the common written language is Aurebesh, then how did they come along with getting x or y or a or b or v or k? i mean they get that from galtice basic, but if they did, then how d they know what it looks like??? Darth EJ 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speed Discrepancies

Wikipedia states that the speed of the X-Wing is 100MGLT. In the article concerning MGLT, it states that "Within the games (X-Wing computer games), 1 MGLT is approximately equal to 1 meter per second." However it later states that "They (certain fans) believe through their computations that it is equivalent to an acceleration of approximately 400 SI meters per second squared". I suggest you got to the links provided to see this more in detail. This means that the speed for space travel is either 100m/s2, 4000m/s2 or 3700g (about 36260m/s2), as stated in this article.

All the games by LucasArts say the speed is 100 MGLT. As do The Farlander Papers.84.152.121.147 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep changing the speed to 100 MGLT until someone tells me which source says it was 90 MGLT AND why that source is "more canon" than the LucasArts games and the the Falrander Papers84.152.79.67 11:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Speed is changed again to 80 MGLT... - if "Behind the Magic" remains the only source for this "correction" we should change it back to the more canon 100 MGLT, don't we?? Deep Thought 42 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • ok, after all this time no one seems to be against it. I will do so now...--Deep Thought 42 11:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Countermeasures

i'm curious about X-wings having chaf/flares; i've researched X-wings (for fanfic purposes) and never seen reference to that. (i don't remember that detail in "Bloodlines", either.) What do the abbreviations NEGVV and TNEGtVaV stand for?70.17.201.126 06:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

-Page 5 of Truce at Bakura Luke launches his lightsaber out the flare ejection port.

Thank you! 70.17.204.145 09:55, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

X-wings in the real world.

I once read in a SW article in a science magazine that the US air force had a fighter that could open and close its wings just like an X-wing. Unfortunately, I have since lost said magazine, and I cannot remember the name of the fighter. And I think that this information could be used in the article. Can someone help? Unit 8311 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I know what you're talking about... I can't remember the name of the fighter, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it might be the SR-71 Blackbird or something similar, but I'm not sure. Unit 8311 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The wings are FIXED on the SR-71, no split. There's no USAF fighter past or present with split wings like the X-wing. There have been some with swing wings like the F-14, but that IS different. There may have been an experimental plane with some kind of split wings but that's it. -Fnlayson 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you sure? Then maybe it was an RAF fighter or something. Unit 8311 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. See what you can find out. Get back with us if you find an example. -Fnlayson 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You know what, I was random-paging through Wikipedia before and I saw what may be a real-life X-wing, but I couldn't get the name of it because I accidentily exited the window. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
              • [1] -LtNOWIS 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I was just going to post that. There's also this thing that says it's related to the S-72. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
                • OK, an "X-wing" rotorcraft hybrid. I can't find anything that opens and closes its wing as Unit 8311 described. -Fnlayson 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • I think there is, but I wouldn't know what to search for. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • I think I might know where the magazine where I saw the thing in the first place is, actually. If my hunch is correct, I'll be posting the information at some pont tomorrow. Unit 8311 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Hopefully there will be a good image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                        • Whoops. Due to personal matters, I wasn't able to look for it. Unit 8311 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
                          • Too bad. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
                            • I found said magazine yesterday, but my computer crashed, which is also why I made no edits yesterday. And I'm somewhat embarrased to admit that I made a mistake. The article compares the X-wing to the F-111, which has swing wings, not s-foil wings. Again, I'm really sorry for this. But hey, at least something came out of this topic: we found out about that X-wing helicopter thing, which we could put in. So, I'm sorry for my error, but I'm sure you'll all forgive me. Unit 8311 12:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New quote?

"The Incom T-65 X-wing is the fighter that killed the Death Star. An almost perfect blend of speed, maneuverability, and defensive shielding make it the fighter of choice for Rogue Squadron."
―General Carlist Rieekan[src]

How does this one grab you? I think that's how the quote went, anyway - Lalala la 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Which image?

This image X-wing11.jpg is currently being used in the article, as well as other articles also. I replaced it with Yavin-flyby.jpg which is a high def screencap that more closely focuses on the X-wing, yet it keeps getting reverted back. So once again, I'm asking for others' opinions on the matter. Which image belongs in the X-wing article? - JMAS 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Did you even bother to read my edit summary when I reverted it last? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. And I disagree with you. It is a high definition screenshot. There is nothing poor about the image quality. - JMAS 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • But the quality of the X-wings in the image itself is what is poor. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • But they are still X-wings, poor quality or not. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm looking at the image and I just don't see what you're talking about Jack. Though if you'll leave the image where I just put in in the Disabiguous X-wing page, I'll let this go. I'm just not willing to a good image like this get deleted for not being used. - JMAS 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ion cannons?

Is it mentioned in the article that X-Wings include ION cannons? In 'Rouge Squadron' the level where you save Wedge, You use ION cannons to disable a hover train —Unsigned comment by 58.107.83.139 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm pretty sure that canonically, you use a B-wing in that mission. But since you can use any of the available ships, every ship is equipped with ion cannons to accomplish the mission. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack you are WRONG. YOU CAN'T GET THE B-WING IN THIS GAME, THE ONLY SHIPS YOU CAN USE ARE THE X-WING AND THE N-1. WHICH ONLY HAS TORPS SO IF YOU USE IT, YOU FAIL.X-WINGS HAVE USED ION CANNONS. GET OVER IT.—Unsigned comment by Aybfreak (talk • contribs)

Sorry 'bout that Captain, my caps lock was broken.

xwings had ion canons.FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!! 23:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I have Rogue Squadron and i remember that mission. Maybe they field-modified their available X-Wings for an emergency mission by replacing the two torpedo launchers with ion cannons83.33.17.239 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down people. It WAS a field modification... they removed the warhead launchers and fitted a couple ion canons in.. dunno why they simply didnt used Y-Wings but its a game after all.

Affiliation

What is the justification for listing the Empire as an affiliation for the X-wing? Sure, there are documented instances of them using them, such as Kirtan Loor's fake Rogue Squadron, but if that counts as affiliation, then there are tons of other governments and groups that have used a few X-wings at one time or another. I think the "affiliation" section should only include groups that use the particular ship with significant frequency and in significant numbers, not incidentally or for a specific mission. —Unsigned comment by 72.179.43.16 (talk • contribs)

  • Due to its manufacturer Incom. Read the first part of the History section. -Fnlayson 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets just put the Fighter as the Rebel Alliance already guys. You know this fighter destroyed the Death Star and finally this fighter has no replacements and will be forever used.(Assaulthead 02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

  • Uh, all afflictions are listed in the Infobox. There's nothing to add. -Fnlayson 06:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the source for the X-Wing being used by the Hapans?

In "The Courtship of Princess Leia". Luke claims to be having issues with his X-wing and asks Prince Isolder if he (Luke) can borrow one of the Hapans'.70.17.201.126 06:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Repulsorlifts

Say, the X-Wing has these. Why aren't they mentioned anywhere? 68.228.89.148 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Because all starfighters (and ALL crafts down to speeders or bikes) have repulsorlifts to vertically take off, land, hover and lift in flight .. Its a bit pointless mentioning it becuse its as saying that a plane has wings.

T-65

The article says that Garven Dreis tells Luke/ mentions that the X-wing is a T-65. But he never says this. —Unsigned comment by 24.218.59.12 (talk • contribs)

  • That part was a cut scene. It is in the 2004 version. Dreis asks if Luke "has been checked out on the T-65?" Since it was in the script but cut, it'll be in the Marvel comic version and movie novel. -Fnlayson 01:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Length?

In the basic X-Wing Starfighter page, it lists the length of the fighter as 16 meters, yet in this article, as well as articles for several other X-Wing variants, list it as 12.5 meters long. Which length is correct?

  • Neither. The actual length is about 42' (~12.8m), established from the 1/24 pilot in the ~21" studio model USED IN THE MOVIE. 12seraph 04:44, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

The X-wing.

It's freaking amazing, and it is un-undoubtedly the coolest starship ever conceived.

That is all.

missing R2/astromech

The first X-wing pictured on this article has no R2 unit (or any other type of astromech droid) that i can see; in fact, it does not even appear to have a socket for an astromech droid. i was flipping through "The New Rebellion" and "The Crystal Star" last night (admittedly half-asleep) and seem to remember something about an X-wing "upgrade" intended to replace astromechs with a more efficient navicomputer (Luke Skywalker and R2-D2 rather disliked the plan)? but regardless of which book it was in, the point is that the original T-65 design (and, i believe, almost all subsequent X-wing models) had an astromech socket, so the article's main pic should also include the astromech socket--preferably occupied by an astromech. Maybe move up one of the article's other pics which DO show an astromech? 70.17.201.126 06:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

bump? i still think the main pic on this article is flawed and therefore not ideal as a main pic, but i don't know how to change pics, or what Wookieepedia's policy/criteria might be for what is or isn't suitable. 70.17.204.145 08:30, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

T-65 B problems

i added my thoughts on the 65b in the talk section of that page but it has yet to get a response. from my personal knowledge of x-wings this page is WAY off and needs to be heavily edited or outright deleted and redirected to the main T-65 page. i go into more detail as to why on the talk page of the B model. help me wookieepedia editors, you're my only hope! —Unsigned comment by 24.5.227.45 (talk • contribs)

  • What I undestand and see, Omicron does answer well in Talk:T-65B X-wing starfighter on this matter. Also please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), thanks. –Tm_T (Talk) 18:00, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

vairants and sources?

is there any reference to the T-65AC1 thru AC3 even existing? second paragraph under history lists them. i remember Anakin flew the AC4 in the NJO but that is the only reference i know of to this variant group. any thoughts? --FreqiMANN 03:33, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

T-65B

does anyone have a copy of Star Wars Adventure Journal #4? im having trouble getting my hands on a copy. im wondering if the story outright says the plans Ral Shawgrim steals are of the B model or if the article just says x-wing in general. ive found various sources that say the B was a part of the alliance early on. of what i have read, the story takes place around the time of the battle of hoth.

  • "Shortly after the Battle of Hoth, Alliance technician Ral Shawgrim fled the Calamari Shipyards for the Empire, with near-complete datafiles on the Incom T-65B X-wing starfighter." jSarek 10:43, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
    • thanks for the quick reply. any indication on whether the B model was currently under development? thats what is implied in the wiki currently and i have conflicting sources.FreqiMANN 10:46, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • Not that I can see. In fact, I would say the article implies the opposite: "Shawgrim had duplicated the plans while serving as a starfighter repair coordinator, and when he had compiled as close to complete prints as he could, he attempted to defect to the Sienar headquarters on Lianna." While it's not exactly conclusive evidence, personnel don't normally have access to to top-secret plans unless those plans are needed to do their jobs, and a repair coordinator's job is to coordinate the fixing of things that already exist. jSarek 17:30, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

edited page to reflect this information--FreqiMANN 18:05, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

behind the scenes: T-65 vs T-65b

i remember collecting X-wing toys and SW books as a kid, and the in-universe technical specifications variously referred to Luke Skywalker's X-wing as either a T-65 or a T-65b. My GUESS was that maybe, behind the scenes, T-65 was from a rough draft and T-65b was from a revised draft, or vice versa, and the toymakers and writers were given information from both drafts without any concern for consistency, because nobody at Lucasfilm (or their licensing department) thought any fans would care about such a small difference in a made-up serial number for a made-up ship. If my GUESS was correct, everything about T-65A, T-65B, T-65C, etc being different versions of the T-65 would be a retcon to explain away the discrepancy, rather than something included in the original writing. i've always wondered if i guessed right, but i've never found any sort of confirmation. Does anyone know where to look to see if maybe i got it right? or if i got it wrong, what the real story is? 70.17.204.145 08:45, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

In Need of Referencing.

i would very much like to see the main text referenced. im glad to see people adding things into the source list but the text still has a pithy 25 references, (a good portion of which are used to verify performance data only).

most of this article looks like it was cut and pasted from another website. if you have references for the statements in this article, please add them. if you think a statement can't be verified please open it up for discussion. if you think something looks like fanon, get rid of it.

--FreqiMANN (talk) 20:56, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Mixed up with another similar article.

We've got this article and this one: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/T-65B_X-wing_starfighter/Legends. I feel like maybe one should stay and the other should go. If so, which one? --Rocket Retro Reed (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)