Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8
      #5613224 - 01/09/13 07:46 AM

This will not be one of "those" threads... It seems I have purchased a TEC 200 f/15 Maksutov. It will replace my lovely 1988 AP 6-inch f/8 refractor. The cost of the new scope will be no more than $1000 more than what I can get for the refractor and, if I'm fortunate, maybe only a couple of hundred dollars.

It's win, win, win, I feel. Better colour correction, 2" more aperture, 99% Strehl (I'm sure the refractor is well into 95% territory itself..), less bulky for travel to Star Parties and putting into a small urban observatory like a skyshed pod (the refractor was just too big for that useage).

I'll be cracking doublestars (my favorite), planets and deep sky with the new scope which, if all goes well, will see first light for me at the Winter Star Party.



Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RAKing
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5613268 - 01/09/13 08:18 AM

Dave,

Congrats on your scope. I also love my 8 inch Mak (as well as my refractors) and it's a wonderful instrument for splitting tight doubles.

IIRC - you used to have an 8-inch Mak and sold it because of cool down issues. May I ask what changed your mind?

Cheers,

Ron


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5613357 - 01/09/13 09:16 AM

Win, win, win.. Until you want a dazzling 2 degree true field.

And I expect the AP Strehl was better than .95. My own has optics that appear to be about as perfect as I have seen... I doubt that Mr, Christen would settle for less than near perfection. That is why his wait list is a better part of a decade.

But this has been my own message, and I will repeat it again and again... It is very easy to beat even a perfect 6" refractor on planets and deep sky.

Where big refractors excel was, is, and always will be in the ability to produce very wide, fully illuminated, razor sharp views that are very flat and well corrected for coma.

No one should buy a 6" APO for planets or deep sky. It is far to easy to do better for less money... If you don't need the big field of view.

So, I expect your new scope will do better on deep sky and planets than your 6" APO.

But don't turn it towards the Double Cluster...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5613434 - 01/09/13 10:07 AM

Dave, I'd be interested to know how your Mak performs on doubles (your favorite.) I am exploring my own Mak in that arena.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
t.r.
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 02/14/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5613487 - 01/09/13 10:51 AM

Isn't there an advantage for obstructed scopes in splitting doubles due to the secondary and the way the diffraction rings display (energy dispersion)? I'll predict that planetary will be on par...Dave has my seeing conditions!!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Abraham
sage


Reged: 05/17/05

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: t.r.]
      #5613559 - 01/09/13 11:42 AM

Dave: I've got an MC200 and a TEC140 and live in the same city as you where I have a POD too. So I've done the 8" Mak vs. 6"-ish apo in a POD comparison from Toronto. Here's what I've found:

1. The MC200 is the better planetary scope, though the TEC140 gives great planetary views too. Both were clearly better than my C8 in side-by-side comparisons (no real surprise) on Jupiter and Mars. Get a binoviewer, which improves the planetary views with both (though with the TEC140 more than with the MC200, for some reason I haven't figured out).

2. The MC200 is a perfect fit for the pod; The TEC140 (5.5" f/7) is also OK in the POD but feeling a tiny bit cramped. A significant benefit of the MC200 is that it can be mounted a bit lower than the TEC140 which gives more zenith clearance with the lip of the pod roof. I suspect you'll still want a POD zenith table some nights though.

3. In general the MC200 is a better double star scope than a TEC140 (though again the latter is no slouch). The 8" aperture is perfect for double stars in our lousy seeing conditions - the airy disk + first ring can be made out nicely (albeit with a broken ring) most nights, and on account of only a 26% obstruction and the great optics in the MC200 if the seeing is at all reasonable you don't get a lot of moving gunk in the PSF from the broken rings so things look rather beautiful in the MC200. I just think it's the right compromise aperture in our seeing for close doubles to look pretty... if you go bigger the seeing limits you most nights, and if you go smaller you're not exploiting all the atmosphere can give you most nights. (For example, I found a C11 lousy for double stars from Toronto because the seeing was usually too poor for a stable airy ring pattern which I find is important for a nice aesthetic view of many close doubles; so even though obviously the C11 would split tighter doubles I liked it far less for doubles than the MC200). The only time the TEC140 is better for doubles is for very unequal pairs for which the secondary lies on the first airy ring.

4. Overall I find the MC200 to be the perfect city double star + planetary scope. But while it's great for use in the city, it wouldn't be my first-choice for a DSO scope; The FoV is too narrow and aperture is too small. The TEC140 solves the former and is more useful for wide-field imaging (and is pretty good at planets and doubles too) so is the more versatile scope.

5. Make sure you're equatorially mounted with the MC200 as you'll be up at 400x for doubles on many nights (particularly during the summer). My favourite eyepiece on the scope is the 8-24mm Baader zoom.

Hope this helps,

Bob

Edited by Bob Abraham (01/09/13 11:54 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bierbelly
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5613585 - 01/09/13 11:53 AM

Quote:

Win, win, win.. Until you want a dazzling 2 degree true field.

And I expect the AP Strehl was better than .95. My own has optics that appear to be about as perfect as I have seen... I doubt that Mr, Christen would settle for less than near perfection. That is why his wait list is a better part of a decade.

But this has been my own message, and I will repeat it again and again... It is very easy to beat even a perfect 6" refractor on planets and deep sky.

Where big refractors excel was, is, and always will be in the ability to produce very wide, fully illuminated, razor sharp views that are very flat and well corrected for coma.

No one should buy a 6" APO for planets or deep sky. It is far to easy to do better for less money... If you don't need the big field of view.

So, I expect your new scope will do better on deep sky and planets than your 6" APO.

But don't turn it towards the Double Cluster...




Funny, I have no problem with the Double Cluster in my Mak...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: bierbelly]
      #5613693 - 01/09/13 01:02 PM

If you are talking about the scope in your signature line, it is not the same as the f/15 MCT the OP is talking about.

True though, the MNs come very close to the best refractors for all performance.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bierbelly
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5613721 - 01/09/13 01:21 PM

Quote:

If you are talking about the scope in your signature line, it is not the same as the f/15 MCT the OP is talking about.




I know. At f/4 it's got a pretty wide FOV. Great for scanning the skies.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doctordub
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 01/11/06

Loc: New Rochelle, New York
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: bierbelly]
      #5614069 - 01/09/13 04:47 PM

I have had some excellent views of the double cluster with an f10 IM703 and a Pan 27mm.
CS


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mark Costello
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 03/08/05

Loc: Matthews, NC, USA
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: doctordub]
      #5614116 - 01/09/13 05:21 PM

When I observe the double cluster I spend a lot of time at about 118X. The eyepiece I use allows me to frame each cluster separately. I like spending a long time drawing each cluster separately, mapping individual stars and noting the colors in some of the stars.

I also like prolong observations of both clusters framed together. I guess the OP will use his smaller refractors for that....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Mark Costello]
      #5614213 - 01/09/13 06:20 PM

Just to be clear: My AP is not for sale. Don't want any TOS violations....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: RAKing]
      #5614217 - 01/09/13 06:22 PM

I don't recall cool-down issues. I sold it to finance my Teeter....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5614233 - 01/09/13 06:28 PM

A quick, back of the envelope calculation: My 31 Nagler will yield about 100x. Field of view 0.82 degree.

When I said deep sky I was thinking globs, planetaries, open clusters etc....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: bierbelly]
      #5614245 - 01/09/13 06:35 PM

Your Mak-Newt is f/4. My new Mak-Cass is f/15.5 - - different beasts entirely.

I have an 80mm (3.1") William Optics Fluorite doublet, f/6.9 which will be the 'finder' as well as a scope that can get all 4 degrees of both halves of the Veil in one view....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5614248 - 01/09/13 06:36 PM

I'm picking up the TEC on Saturday and it will get first light at the Winter Star Party so a report will follow...

Hang in there.....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Bob Abraham]
      #5614260 - 01/09/13 06:41 PM

Hi, Bob. I met you at an NYAA meeting, yes? Anyway, thanks for the input. I'm most happy about the possibility of a Pod now. The TEC 200 will fit in there nicely with my rather hefty bulk - 6'6" - the AP didn't have a chance....

The mount is an AP Mach 1 so no difficulties there....

Dav


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
doug mc
super member
*****

Reged: 03/21/09

Loc: Tamborine Mountain Australia
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5614313 - 01/09/13 07:10 PM

A question about double star observing with scopes with central obstructions? Seeing that the mak is bigger than the refractor does a nd filter reduce the diffraction ring brightness to a point where it helps seeing stars on the first diffraction ring. Dollar for dollar one can get much bigger maks than refractors, so some light loss to should not be a major problem. The nd filter does not interfere with cromatic correction. True or false?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Abraham
sage


Reged: 05/17/05

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: doug mc]
      #5614467 - 01/09/13 08:31 PM

With an ND filter the contrast ratio (the main factor) will be unchanged. So I am pretty sure it won't help. Some sort of apodizing mask (a spatial filter in Fourier space) could help in principle though the resulting PSF will be ugly.

Bob


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Abraham
sage


Reged: 05/17/05

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5614479 - 01/09/13 08:44 PM

Hi Dave,

We probably met at Starfest a couple of years ago when the NYAA invited me up to give a talk.

If you're 6' 6" you've got 8" of height on me but I'm pretty confident you won't be too squeezed in a POD, as the relevant squeeze point tends to be round the midsection (and sadly I've probably got you matched there!).

I've got a Mach-1 too and if you really want a roomy POD with your MC200 then you may wish to get a "shorty" counterweight bar if you haven't already got one. It really helps free up some room round the front of the scope which helps a lot.

I think you'll love your new scope...

Bob

Quote:

Hi, Bob. I met you at an NYAA meeting, yes? Anyway, thanks for the input. I'm most happy about the possibility of a Pod now. The TEC 200 will fit in there nicely with my rather hefty bulk - 6'6" - the AP didn't have a chance....

The mount is an AP Mach 1 so no difficulties there....

Dav




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vahe
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 08/27/05

Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5614488 - 01/09/13 08:56 PM

Quote:

I'm picking up the TEC on Saturday and it will get first light at the Winter Star Party so a report will follow...






If this TEC 200 Mak is the one on Amart I would really appreciate if you can give me the make and model of the case that comes with the scope.
I also have a TEC 200 Mak and definitely love to have that case.

Vahe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gatorengineer
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 02/28/05

Loc: Hellertown, PA
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: vahe]
      #5614509 - 01/09/13 09:10 PM

Beautiful scope, I am sure you will enjoy it. And the 29 Arc Minute Double cluster will fit very nicely in it

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5614574 - 01/09/13 09:55 PM

I've had the need to scratch my Mak itch lately as well DC.
I think you'll enjoy the TEC, and be able to get the most out of it if observatory housed. Don't be alarmed if the focuser might have become disengaged during shipment(likely rare, but it has happened to others). It's an easy fix for you or Yuri.

Managed to pick up a super rare LOMO 203 MCT a couple of years ago. A quick analysis indicated it could never have been collimated because one primary collimation screw required replacement with a longer one to even line up the baffle to the secondary...then never really used it(apparently wasn't itching that hard back then).

Pulled it out and disassembled a couple of weeks ago to consider the possibility of cooling upgrades. Found the full length baffle tube cocked sideways. Clean, polish, reattach, relube, (and reinstall the factory collimation screw) etc....and the thing really rocks! IIRC the history page from TEC's website correctly, it was LOMO that Yuri did some of his first work with in the US. Both LOMO and TEC are pretty darn good bets on superb optics (and a bit in common when it comes to design cues too).

Split the Trap at med mag under Pickering 5-6 skies....yours will too. Enjoy!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: vahe]
      #5614586 - 01/09/13 10:03 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm picking up the TEC on Saturday and it will get first light at the Winter Star Party so a report will follow...








If this TEC 200 Mak is the one on Amart I would really appreciate if you can give me the make and model of the case that comes with the scope.
I also have a TEC 200 Mak and definitely love to have that case.

Vahe




I'll have the scope and case (yes, the ones on AMrt) back here in Toronto by Saturday night. I'll send the info then....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Abraham
sage


Reged: 05/17/05

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5614647 - 01/09/13 10:49 PM

Mark: please post some pictures of that LOMO it would be fun to see it! Does it have an integrated fork mount or is it an OTA?

Dave: I know what Mark is talking about because my focuser did become disengaged once after shipment. If it ever happens its a trivial fix that Yuri emailed me how to do and it takes 10 mins max.

Bob

PS Some colleagues of mine visited LOMO a few years ago as they're one of the few companies capable of handling the fabrication of the Thirty Meter Telescope's mirror segments (mass production is needed, basically). I was told their huge facility resembles a car factory. They are such a big industrial outfit I'm a little surprised they do optics for the small amateur astronomy market too.

Quote:

I've had the need to scratch my Mak itch lately as well DC.
I think you'll enjoy the TEC, and be able to get the most out of it if observatory housed. Don't be alarmed if the focuser might have become disengaged during shipment(likely rare, but it has happened to others). It's an easy fix for you or Yuri.

Managed to pick up a super rare LOMO 203 MCT a couple of years ago. A quick analysis indicated it could never have been collimated because one primary collimation screw required replacement with a longer one to even line up the baffle to the secondary...then never really used it(apparently wasn't itching that hard back then).

Pulled it out and disassembled a couple of weeks ago to consider the possibility of cooling upgrades. Found the full length baffle tube cocked sideways. Clean, polish, reattach, relube, (and reinstall the factory collimation screw) etc....and the thing really rocks! IIRC the history page from TEC's website correctly, it was LOMO that Yuri did some of his first work with in the US. Both LOMO and TEC are pretty darn good bets on superb optics (and a bit in common when it comes to design cues too).

Split the Trap at med mag under Pickering 5-6 skies....yours will too. Enjoy!




Edited by Bob Abraham (01/09/13 11:00 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Keith-in-Texas
member
*****

Reged: 10/16/06

Loc: Stephenville, TX
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5614789 - 01/10/13 12:55 AM

Hello Dave,

When you post the info pertaining to the case that comes with your TEC 200 Mak, would you mind posting it on this forum message? I also have this same scope and I'm interesting in that case.

By the way, I love my TEC Mak and I'm confident you will as well.

I really like using it with my binoviewers.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Keith-in-Texas]
      #5614964 - 01/10/13 07:11 AM

OK, Keith. I'll post it here for both you and Vahe.

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Bob Abraham]
      #5614971 - 01/10/13 07:18 AM

Bob, all this talk of loose focusers....

I'm bringing this baby home in my car, not entrusting it to those 'shipping' companies. Should be fine......

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bierbelly
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/04

Loc: Sterling, VA
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5615076 - 01/10/13 08:59 AM

Quote:

Your Mak-Newt is f/4. My new Mak-Cass is f/15.5 - - different beasts entirely.

I have an 80mm (3.1") William Optics Fluorite doublet, f/6.9 which will be the 'finder' as well as a scope that can get all 4 degrees of both halves of the Veil in one view....

Dave




I know. Perhaps we should compare at WSP?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Bob Abraham]
      #5615269 - 01/10/13 11:07 AM Attachment (34 downloads)

Only have a pic of the skewed baffle to primary attachment right now. More later.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Moonglum
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/01/08

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: maknewtnut]
      #5615915 - 01/10/13 05:21 PM

Keith how does your 9.25 SCT compare to the TEC MAC?-Perhaps the same amount of detail only the MAK is a bit sharper with more contrast?
Congrats on the Mak Dave, you must have acted pretty fast in buying it. It went pending in less than 24 hours. Your 15.5 will be the forth that I know of in the GTA.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom and Beth
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Tucson, AZ
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Cotts]
      #5616192 - 01/10/13 08:09 PM

Quote:

Bob, all this talk of loose focusers....

I'm bringing this baby home in my car, not entrusting it to those 'shipping' companies. Should be fine......

Dave




Dave,

When my TEC 250 was shipped, it had a shipping screw to keep the back end "happy" in transit. A call to Yuri could confirm if your new baby also has this, and what size should you need to stop by a hardware store.

Congratulations! You're going to like the new toy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Bob Abraham]
      #5616544 - 01/11/13 12:23 AM

I don't want to hijack Dave's thread, so will post pics of the LOMO 203 by starting another.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Keith-in-Texas
member
*****

Reged: 10/16/06

Loc: Stephenville, TX
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Moonglum]
      #5618254 - 01/11/13 11:59 PM

Hi Moon, I have only compared the TEC 200 and C9.25 on one occasion and that was under suboptimal seeing conditions. On this night the views through through the Mak were definitely of higher contrast and much preferred.

Now if I could just get my hands on a TEC 250 Mak!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Cotts
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Keith-in-Texas]
      #5619645 - 01/12/13 06:55 PM

Safe arrival home of scope and case by 5:30 pm today (Saturday). I asked the seller about the case and he told me that the company has been out of business for several years...... I'm pretty tired from the trip and will not bother further with the new scope until tomorrow morning. I'll get some pics up here.

Treasure of the Sierra Madre on TCM.....

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jjbird
super member
*****

Reged: 01/17/06

Loc: Wisconsin
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: Tom and Beth]
      #5619684 - 01/12/13 07:17 PM

Can anyone please let me know the length and threading of the TEC200 Mak shipping screw?
Thanks,
J.Bird


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Keith-in-Texas
member
*****

Reged: 10/16/06

Loc: Stephenville, TX
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: jjbird]
      #5620027 - 01/12/13 11:42 PM

Here is the info pertaining to the transportation screw from the manual:

Transportation screw, 6-32, 1.0" long.
Please remove it before using telescope and close the hole with 8-32 screw included. Transportation screw is needed for shipping only!

Best regards,

Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Keith-in-Texas
member
*****

Reged: 10/16/06

Loc: Stephenville, TX
Re: TEC 200 Mak vs AP 152 f/8 new [Re: jjbird]
      #5620031 - 01/12/13 11:46 PM

Here is the info pertaining to the transportation screw from the manual:

If youneed to send the scope by any carrier, put micrometer in the position near 10 as shown and screw the 6-32 thumbscrew in. If you do not have original one - use same size 1.0"~1.2" long screw.


Transportation screw, 6-32, 1.0" long.
Please remove it before using telescope and close the hole with 8-32 screw included. Transportation screw is needed for shipping only!

Best regards,

Keith


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
14 registered and 24 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 2185

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics