TIE fighter/bomber/interceptor thusters

[Mr. Oragahn]

Although the "nozzle" aperture isn't particularly large, I don't get the idea that these engines make the TIE fighters particularly slow. Surely, the main spherical section is largely eaten by the cockpit and the weapons have to stick out a bit, but 99.99% of ships in SW have large thruster bells/cones/'prisms'. If the ion thrusters were so effective, then why are they not upscaled onto larger vessels? The size of the belt thrusters on the Millennium Falcon is comparatively enormous, for example. Only the Death Star comes with thrusters which are not visible at all, but reasonable people would understand that it's a station and not really a space ship. Imagine you upscaled a TIE's spherical section until it matched the volume of a Death Star, the thursters would be gigantic, and that's not counting the fact that the TIE also come with lateral sections extending either way, joint to large panels.
Could there be a relation between the small size of those thrusters and the oversized panels?
The EU says they're solar panels, but if they were cooling panels, wouldn't they allow the engines to be much more efficient in some department, and thus allow for a considerably smaller size?

Sidenote: there doesn't seem to be much room for fuel stock on a TIE. Sure, they're obviously short ranged crafts, but really...

[Mith]

Although the "nozzle" aperture isn't particularly large, I don't get the idea that these engines make the TIE fighters particularly slow.

You'd be correct. The TIEs are actually known for their speed. It's pretty much the only way any of those pilots live is simply by outmanuvering their counterparts.

Surely, the main spherical section is largely eaten by the cockpit and the weapons have to stick out a bit, but 99.99% of ships in SW have large thruster bells/cones/'prisms'. If the ion thrusters were so effective, then why are they not upscaled onto larger vessels?

Um..I thought they were?

The size of the belt thrusters on the Millennium Falcon is comparatively enormous, for example. Only the Death Star comes with thrusters which are not visible at all, but reasonable people would understand that it's a station and not really a space ship. Imagine you upscaled a TIE's spherical section until it matched the volume of a Death Star, the thursters would be gigantic, and that's not counting the fact that the TIE also come with lateral sections extending either way, joint to large panels.
Could there be a relation between the small size of those thrusters and the oversized panels?

It's probable that the design that the TIE uses is limited to a certain weight size; ie, only small craft have the capability to use them. Ships such as the Millennium Falcon were probably originally designed for reliablity and redundancy, as were most other large ships. If a TIE breaks down, it shouldn't be that far from its home base anyway. A freighter on the other hand, could very well be in trouble if they aren't designed to be easily repaired or with back ups. Same with the ISDs and the other ships.

The EU says they're solar panels, but if they were cooling panels, wouldn't they allow the engines to be much more efficient in some department, and thus allow for a considerably smaller size?

Sidenote: there doesn't seem to be much room for fuel stock on a TIE. Sure, they're obviously short ranged crafts, but really...

No, I think it's pretty obvious that they're solar panels. And that's really how the Empire runs their TIEs; makes them dirt cheap.