Jump to content


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


mount for C9.25

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 magnus


    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Visby, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:19 AM

What mount is the minimum for a C9.25? Will my CG-5 be enough? Visual observing.
/Magnus 57 N.

#2 Jim-M


    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Southern Calif.

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:34 AM

My C9.25 works well on my CG-5 for visual. Takes a little more time to settle after focus than a C8, but still measured in seconds.

#3 Keith



  • *****
  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 14 May 2005
  • Loc: los Angeles California

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:13 AM

losmandy GM8/G9, dampens faster than CG5, originally intended for C9.25 (losmandy made celestron G9), back when the 8's were on vixen GPs (which CG5 is a clone of)

If you weren't all the way in sweden, I would try to sell you mine, but Jim, you looking for an upgrade? =)

#4 Eddgie



  • *****
  • Posts: 17246
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

If your CG5 is the later version with steel legs, it will be a bit shakey at high powers, but should otherwise be fine.

There are a couple of issues though. First, not all C9s come with the right dovetail, though just about all of them have the holes needed if you want to change the dovetail. Many came with the CGE dovetail though, and this won't work on the CG5.

Next, you may need some extra counterweight. The C9 is quite a bit heavier than the C8. Closer to the C11 than the C8. The C9 weighs in at about 20 lbs.

This is near the limit of the CG5 (oh, you can go over the limit of course, but the more you put on it, the less satisfying it will be to use), so you will want to keep your load light. As little extra weight as possible (focusers, finders, etc).

You'll want to add vibration suppression pads if you use high powers.

You may find an adjustable seat observer's chair to be desirable. The weak point on most mounts is the tripod, and if you have to extend the tripod to get the eyepeice to a comfortable height, you loose stability quickly.

A better alternative is to keep the legs short and lower yourself down to the eyepiece. This keeps the mount much more stable. A good observer's chair makes this quick and easy.

Celestron sold these on CG5 for years, so it works well enough that it will get you by I suppose, but it may not be ideal.

So this it simply becomes a personal issua as to whether you can live with it. Many people do, and my guess will be that much has to do with how much planetar observing you do. The more you do, the less happy you will be with the CG5.

But for all around observing, I think you can get by with this.

#5 Stelios



  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

I've been observing visually with a CG-5 and 9.25 for almost 10 years and find the combination perfectly satisfactory.

I have vibration suppression pads, but never bother using them.

You *will* need a 2nd counterweight and an observing chair (I use a Televue Air-chair) is highly recommended.

If you are visual only, I'd strongly advise you to *not* look for a heavier mount.

#6 magnus


    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Visby, Sweden

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

Thanks all for kind feedback!

Keith if you were not as far away as US I would consider your Losmandy;-)

Eddgie: Yes my CG-5:s have (actually I have two, one GT and one non GT)2" steel legs.
The dovtail is not an issue for me as I can choose to buy CGE dovtail or Vixen dito.
I have three counterwights.
My CG-5:s handle my old orange C8 extremely well; a knock on the ota at 480X and vibrations dies within 1". They also do a decent job with my 8" f/6 Orion Optics UK Newt. (7 kg, 14 lbs)as long as it is not too much wind.
I always use the mount legs as little extended as possible. With the Newt they are not extended at all.
I have a very nice observingchair, which I can vary from very low to rather high. Can`t live without that!
I am not a particular planetaryobserver, my observingintressts are rather general with possibly a preferation to binaries and globular clusters.

Stelios: Yes, indeed, I am visual only and I agree with you I won`t look for a heavier mount, like EQ6. Glad you have been happy with CG-5 + C925 for almost 10 years!

Seems like it all "boils" down to the question: Is the C925 with a bit unstability worth the extra 1.25" over C8 which is rocksolid on CG-5?
My 8" Newt. is optically better than my C8 *but* the C8 is so much easier to use and compact in size so it almost comensate for less optical quality. The eypiece is always easy to reach. In the Newt. it often ends up in crazy positions. When rotating the ota I often lose the object and when using go-to I lose alignment when trying to reset the object. That`s my experience anyway.
Maybe I should also mentione that I always use my celstron f/6.3 FR. I don`t like the SCT f/10 tunnelvision. So using a focalreducer with a possible C925 is a must for me.

This won`t be my 1:a scope in life it will probably be my last. I am 60 this year so I don`t expect, or want, to by any more scopes. So I am extra carefull with this purchase.
I also consider a refractor instead. A S-W 120ED or APM 107 APO but that belongs to another forum.

Thanks for reading ny unsorted thoughts!!

Magnus 57N.

C8+6.3 f/r
8"f/6 Newt.
Tento 10X50B
Astro Gemini Alt-Az
And a number of diagonals and eypieces

#7 Stelios



  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

The C-8 has advantages (other than aperture :() over the 9.25 on a CG-5. It's much lighter and you only need to use a single counterweight, which means that you can leave the scope assembled and carry it outside, as the whole thing is around 50lbs (you'd lift the tripod with the scope close to your chest). For sure it's easy to carry the mount + counterweight and then attach the scope if you feel more comfortable that way.

The C9.25 is about 23lbs heavier due to the 2nd counterweight, which makes the same lift (at least for me) more than problematical. In practice I usually need three trips--scope, mount and counterweights, although I suppose I could reduce that to two.

I think those factors are much more important that the fear of instability which won't materialize.

Still, for globular clusters in particular the C9.25 will satisfy more. Both scopes are under-powered for galaxies. It's a tough decision. If you think you'd observe very often if it weren't for the hassle, then get/keep the C-8.If you pick and choose your nights, or they involve trips to a dark site, then the C9.25 becomes the lead candidate.

#8 MrJones


    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Indiana

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

I have mine on the very similar LXD75. The only real issue for me is wind with the dew shield doesn't work out too well. Otherwise the slightly less than rock solid combination is worth it for me to have such a light mount.

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics