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
joelwhicker
super member
Reged: 07/24/08
Posts: 180
|
|
Quote:
I think as a service for the budget conscious.
I try to keep telling my wife that I am budget conscious. IMO a great value, but try explaining to the non initiated that there is $7K difference between the G-11 and AP-900 
--------------------
Joel
|
joelwhicker
super member
Reged: 07/24/08
Posts: 180
|
|
Quote:
You guys are way ahead of me...
Well me too, but at least its nice to run with the bulls
--------------------
Joel
|
RAKing
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/28/07
Posts: 2092
Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula
|
|
Quote:
I try to keep telling my wife that I am budget conscious. IMO a great value, but try explaining to the non initiated that there is $7K difference between the G-11 and AP-900
Yup. -- My Mach1 cost as much as all my scopes combined. 
But when you get right down to it - that is exactly how my Dad taught me to think. A great mount can make a budget scope look good. 
Ron
--------------------
Time spent looking at the stars is added to your life.
Tak FS-128, C925-CF, C6SE, other stray cats and refractors.
A-P Mach1 GTO
Zeiss orthos to Ethos - and some stuff in between.
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
$8450 for the bare bones mount and by the time you get a pier and counterweights and a saddle you're breaking $10k easily. The mount has considerably more capacity than a G11 but I do think for most people a G11 + Ovision upgrade on the RA worm would get them into serious imaging territory for $3800 total outlay.
But for people who have the dough, the AP mounts seem to require less tinkering. And it's just a really, really, nice mount to use. But the G11's pretty damned good too. Whenever I think I'm slumming by taking the G11 out instead of the 900 (I use it with the 128 refractor) I am quickly disabused. The G11 is also a high class mount. But you really don't want to use it with a C14 and a 4" refractor. It gets to be too much.
regards
Greg N
GN
--------------------
"Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
joelwhicker
super member
Reged: 07/24/08
Posts: 180
|
|
I think I was reasonably close on my estimate. I have had two G-11 mounts, one Gemini and the other vanilla. They are very nice to be sure. No complaints. I also had a 2000 vintage AP-400GTO that I always felt was just head and shoulders beyond the G-11's. No, I did not pursue the Ovision upgrade, but did spend considerable time with feeler gauges trying to get backlash to a minimum while not binding things up (0.016 seemed pretty good).
Obviously there is a difference in capacity between the G-11 and the 400, but the excellence of design and execution of the 400 seemed a lot better. I believe that my 900(that will be here tomorrow) will be the shiznit.
--------------------
Joel
|
gnowellsct
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/24/09
Posts: 733
|
|
Quote:
No, I did not pursue the Ovision upgrade, but did spend considerable time with feeler gauges trying to get backlash to a minimum while not binding things up (0.016 seemed pretty good).
The Ovision upgrade makes the backlash adjustment process easier because the worm is in a single housing with the bearings. It takes considerably less time to make the backlash adjustment as a result.
Since the arrival of Ovision the whole tenor of discussion on Losmandy Yahoo! has changed, the PE hounds are happy and getting the performance they want.
I have never regretted outlay on the 900 even as a visual observer; I'm lucky to have such toys as consolation for the trials of middle age. But I also consider it a good choice not to have sold the G11 when I got the 900. For one thing, there was a shakedown period when the 900 had to go to AP for upgrades and then for correction of mistakes during the upgrade process. For another thing, the G11/Berlebach is easier to set up than the 900/ATS. So the mounts serve different purposes and carry different OTAS.
I was used to the G11 as a C14 mount and it did very well, so long as I didn't have a 4" refractor on it. But when I put the FS128 on the G11 I realized that I had moved into a highly optimal configuration.
It is actually possible to put the AP900 on my Berlebach if I invest in the right adapter, and use just the AP900QMD for all my equatorial needs. But the G11 is so damned good at what it does that I can't conceive of sending it packing.
regards
Greg N
--------------------
"Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."
featuring selected astrojunk:
bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff
|
joelwhicker
super member
Reged: 07/24/08
Posts: 180
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, I did not pursue the Ovision upgrade, but did spend considerable time with feeler gauges trying to get backlash to a minimum while not binding things up (0.016 seemed pretty good).
I'm lucky to have such toys as consolation for the trials of middle age.
I am still on trial, hoping for an aquittal 
--------------------
Joel
|
Mystic Hill
member
Reged: 10/29/06
Posts: 36
|
|
Quote:
Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster? The newer mounts come with the larger polar forks. Does this help?
I will mark my patio (while the wife is not around) to get a consistent spot, but it will likely need tweaking each time out.
Also, thought about the ATS pier with the Scope Roller wheels. Wheely bar wheels are too wobbly. Anyone with some experience? The kicker is I have to traverse about 10 feet of aggregate concrete (bumpy) driveway to get to the smooth finished patio.
Joel,
I received my AP1200 mount in April; the knurling on the altitude knob is sharp enough to cut my fingertips so I use the lever rod to help turn the knurled knob. I find that decreasing altitude is easier than increasing, therefore I get my increasing out of the way early and decrease into proper altitude while looking through the polar scope.
I am happy with the AP portable pier. I haven't felt the need to use its turnbuckles to adjust its orientation; the post should be square to the base with the payload centered above the post. The ATS appeared to gain stability with increasing payload while maintaining portability but I didn't think the advantages were worth the extra cost in my case. As it is, I haven't taken the AP portable pier anywhere yet.
I am happy with the ScopeBuggy. It is carrying about 300 pounds over smooth concrete that is slightly sloped for drainage. I feel I would be able to move it over bumpy aggregate. I do not jack the wheels off of the ground and I put the jacks into the marks left behind from earlier times. My nightly polar alignments are significant but small. The tires have lost some pressure since April but seem adequate for the load.
Roy
|
joelwhicker
super member
Reged: 07/24/08
Posts: 180
|
|
Hi Roy,
Thanks for the reply, really hadn't looked at the Scope Buggy, but will now. My issue with the wheely bars with 5" wheels is that the jacks have to extend a long ways to lift the wheels. It seems to create a very high center of gravity. The SB looks much lower slung. Which one do you use, and does SB have fittings for the AP pier feet?
Thanks and regards
--------------------
Joel
|
|
11 registered and 7 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Charlie Hein, lineman_16735
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 659
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
