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.

Photo

What company made star liner reflectors??

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#51 tim53

tim53

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,342
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 14 May 2011 - 10:06 PM

I always thought that the pre dobsonian Coulters were decent. I bought one of those 4" f/12 "planetary mirror kits" they sold around 1979, Bought a Meade tube for it and added some Meade parts to make the OTA and it was a very good telescope.

-Tim.

#52 DJD57

DJD57

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,567
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: NORCO,LA. USA

Posted 14 May 2011 - 11:18 PM

I nknow the star test on the meade 628 was symetrical circular rings on both sides of focus that is all that matters to me dale

#53 Gary T

Gary T

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Burbank CA

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:38 PM

My personal experience with Star-Liner mounts is good. I have the Star Liner “Deluxe” series. It’s a massive mount well built mount that is comparable to a Cave mount (I have both). The total mount weight is over 100 lbs (without the scope)! My model has 1 3/4 inch shafts (larger mounts have 2 inch shafts) rotating on ball bearings, dual drives and large setting circles. The rotating tube feature advertised on these units is typically a felt lined aluminum casted tube clamp. Not as nice as the cave units.

This mount overkill for my 8 inch Newtonian. For me it has been vibration free, smooth RA & DEC movement with minimum backlash on both drives. It fine for visual at high powers. I not have checked it for eccentric tracking errors for imaging. The only issue I have had (for about 30 years) is the leather clutch on the RA drive had dried out and was replaced.

I can’t speak on the quality of Star-Liner optics. My OTA uses Meade optics.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4587099-Starliner1.JPG


#54 jsiska

jsiska

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Central Ohio

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:04 PM

Gary T,

That one very classy looking Classic you got there.

#55 DJD57

DJD57

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,567
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: NORCO,LA. USA

Posted 17 May 2011 - 04:33 PM

that is a really nice set up you have? a real overkill mount but strong and steady i bet it could hold a 10f/6 with no problem dale

#56 pstarr

pstarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,358
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2004
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 17 May 2011 - 06:04 PM

My experience with Starliner was somewhat different. I ordered a 12.5 reflector about 4 years before they went out of business. After the usual long wait, I was told the scope would be shipped air freight because that was the safest way to send it. When I went to pick the scope up, I found the crate was made of 1/2" plywood that was nailed like a coffin. Nails put into half inch plywood have no strength and the crate came apart somewhere during shipping. The front half of the tube had fallen out of the crate somewhere along the route and must have hit the ground pretty hard. The spider was quite bent and damaged and so was the aluminum trim ring on the tube. A couple of metal bands around the crate or screwing, instead of nailing, would have prevented it from falling apart. When I got the scope home, I disassembled it to check everything out. When I removed the mirror from it's mount, I found a fingernail size clam shell chip that Starliner had neatly hidden behind the mirror clip. This chip protruded into the mirrors surface about a 1/16th of an inch. To make a long story short. They also send different eyepieces then they advertised as coming with the scope in their catalog. When collimation the scope, I found that all of the primary mirror could not be seen in the secondary. I laid out the light path to check the size of the secondary mirror and found it was undersized to the point where I was using about 11" of the aperture. The primary mirror was 1/3 wave at best and I replaced it after a year with one from Telescopics and a proper sized secondary. The mount was quite massive but it could have used some roller bearings, like the Cave mounts have in the RA axis. It would have helped the light duty drive function better. A friend had a 10" Cave and it was optically and mechanically a much better scope. Starliner did replace the eyepieces but really didn't have any other comment on the letter I wrote them describing the damage from shipping and the chip in the mirror.

#57 DJD57

DJD57

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,567
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: NORCO,LA. USA

Posted 17 May 2011 - 07:51 PM

wow what an experiecne i knew they made excellent mounts for sure dale

#58 Gary T

Gary T

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Burbank CA

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:59 PM

Paul, sorry about your experience with them. I have heard of other poor experiences involving their customer relations.

There seems to be some variations with their mounts. I have roller bearings on both axis.

I bought this used at long gone optical shop, Optic Instruments, in Monterey Park in 1981. I had the opportunity to get an 8" Cave with their beautiful deluxe polished mount for the same price. But I wanted an f/6 OTA and the Cave was f/8. Had I known how Caves have appreciated in value I might have chosen differently. But I'm still not disappointed with my choice.

#59 Datapanic

Datapanic

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,825
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 17 May 2011 - 09:46 PM

When I was 15 with $560 ready to spend on an 8" Newtonian in early 1975, it was the Cave 8" Lightweight Deluxe or the Star-Liner 8" Standard - their Deluxe was out of bounds for what I had saved from lawn mowing and selling off my comic collection that included Batman #13. I wasn't so sure about the Star-Liner and what I would get if I ordered it, so I wrote them a letter because I also wanted to know about mounting a guidescope and how much more that would cost. I also wrote Cave Optical...

Well, Cave Optical wrote back, recommending the 8" Lightweight Deluxe over their 6" and that he would supply the guidescope rings that could easily mount on the rotating rings. Those guidescope rings are now featured on a famous 10" Cave. I never heard from Star-Liner. Cave must have sent me a catalog every month back then, but Star-Liner, none. They just didn't communicate.

My Dad was never an astronomer, but he was also leaning towards Cave because he had talked with him on the phone, and I guess Mr. Cave persuaded him that his scopes were best. He also called Star-Liner, but never had much to say about them. I liked the Star-Liner mount because they incorporated polar alignment made easy with azimuth rotation and latitude adjustment where Cave's mount did not. But, Cave's mount had wheels and leveling screws and, as Cave emphasized, Real Rotating Rings. So, the choice was clear, I gave my Dad the cash, he wrote two checks, one for 1/2 the amount to Cave and the other when it was finally ready to be shipped.

I would still like to come across an old Star-Liner sitting in a Barn and give it a Restore! Maybe one will pop up here someday :)

#60 pstarr

pstarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,358
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2004
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:29 PM

Paul, sorry about your experience with them. I have heard of other poor experiences involving their customer relations.

There seems to be some variations with their mounts. I have roller bearings on both axis.

I bought this used at long gone optical shop, Optic Instruments, in Monterey Park in 1981. I had the opportunity to get an 8" Cave with their beautiful deluxe polished mount for the same price. But I wanted an f/6 OTA and the Cave was f/8. Had I known how Caves have appreciated in value I might have chosen differently. But I'm still not disappointed with my choice.


It was a long time ago and aggravation has long since gone. I was able to eventually fix the scope up the way I wanted it. I had the 2" shaft mount and there were no bearings in either axis. The shafts road on about a half inch of machined aluminum. Since you bought yours used, maybe the previous owner added the bearings because these mounts really needed them to work right. Though work, I was friends with the guy who ran the maintenance shop at Stouffers foods. They had tons of neat stuff and a complete machine shop. The way these mounts were made, the machined part was a removable flared pc of aluminum that was held in place with allen screws. I was easy enough to remove these pcs and take them to my friend at Stouffer's to get bearings put in them. You could then reinstall them and using a dial indicator, you could turn them and lock them down in a position that had minimal shaft run out. I finally ended up making my own mount and having my friend make me the 2" stainless steel shafts and the 1" thick aluminum saddle plate. He also did the machining. My goal was to fix all the shortcomings of the Starliner mount. See picture. If you look close, the 8" dia. declination setting circle is from the original Starliner mount. This mount has digital setting circles, a 9.3" Thomas Mathis drive, machine class abec 5 bearings on the RA axis and 4.25" housings. You can see the large thrust bearing where the two axis come together. The black setting circle is only used to find 0 deg. declination to dial in the digital circles.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4587887-astronomy_stuff_042-1.jpg


#61 DJD57

DJD57

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,567
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: NORCO,LA. USA

Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:13 AM

now that is a nice big mount? dale

#62 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 21,665
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:36 AM

My 2" shaft Starliner mount had bearings in the RA axis, and just ream bores in the DEC axis.

Chas

#63 pstarr

pstarr

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,358
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2004
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:22 AM

My 2" shaft Starliner mount had bearings in the RA axis, and just ream bores in the DEC axis.

Chas


I didn't have any other Starliner mounts to compare mine with. If these mounts were supposed to have bearings and mine did not, I guess that is just one more thing I didn't get from them.

#64 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 23 December 2013 - 05:59 PM

My name is Charles R. Brisley.My father Charles K.Brisley was the owner and manufacturer of Star-Liner Co. for 45 years before he retired.I have the last Telescope he made before he passed away.It is a 12'5 inch Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4.
My Father made the finest optical mirrors in the US at that time-mid 50's thru-99's.His adds were in Sky and Telescope for 45 years and sold a minimum size from12'5 Observatory models to 40' inch telescopes for Universities
around the US and the world.He also made 6' thru 10' as well for private people that wanted a great telescope for home viewing.
Sincerely,
Charles Brisley.12/23/2013.
  • Karl Fabian, Big_Mark and 21INCHman like this

#65 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:09 PM

Yes.Star-Liner Co.moved to Tucson, Arizona in 1962 were he retired in 1999.
I am his son Charles R.Brisley.I have the last Telescope he made before his passing.It is a 12'5 inch Cassegrian f12/Newtonian f4.
Charles R Brisley.
My email address is -(ricc419@yahoo.com)
  • Jim T Smith and 21INCHman like this

#66 amicus sidera

amicus sidera

    Skylab

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 4,358
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011
  • Loc: East of the Sun, West of the Moon...

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:11 PM

Welcome to the forum, Charles!

Many thanks for the background on the company, I'm sure that there are more than a few folks here who'd like to ask you a few questions about it, as well as offer their praise for the fine instruments your father made.

Fred

#67 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:21 PM

My name is Charles R Brisley.I am his son and have the last Telescope he made before he passed away.It is a Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4.
Sincerely,
Charles R.Brisley.

#68 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 23 December 2013 - 06:43 PM

My name is Charles R. Brisley. My Father was the owner and Manufacturer for 45 years.We moved from Michigan to Tucson,Arizona in 1962.My Father passed away in 1999. His telescopes in his day had the best optical image
possible.My dad payed attention to detail and he was well know in Tucson at the University of Arizona optical department back then.
I have the last Telescope he made before he passed away,It is a 12'5 Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4.
Sincererly,
Charles R.Brisley.

#69 rcwolpert

rcwolpert

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,735
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2012
  • Loc: South Hutchinson Island, Florida

Posted 23 December 2013 - 07:10 PM

Hi Charles,
Would you be able to post a picture of your dad's telescope? He made beautiful telescopes. You must be very proud of him.

- Bob

#70 Datapanic

Datapanic

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,825
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 23 December 2013 - 08:02 PM

Hi Charles,

Welcome to Cloudy Nights and it's great to have someone who can shed a little light on the history of Starliner telescopes - surprising, that kind of information is hard to be found!

I sent you an email - since I live in Tucson, I could come by and take some Show Room quality pictures of it.

Dan

#71 BarabinoSr

BarabinoSr

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,970
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Slidell La

Posted 23 December 2013 - 08:24 PM

Welcome back,Dale ! Good Thread ! I was very fortunate to obtain a fine Star-Liner Equatorial mount a couple of years ago, complete with the counterweights. Mine has the 2-inch shafts as well.I plan to build a 14.5" f/7 Coulter Reflector in the near future to go atop it. Perhaps Mr Brisley can elaborate on this mount for us. Gary

Attached Thumbnails

  • 6269393-Starliner 016.JPG


#72 charlesgeiger

charlesgeiger

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2011

Posted 23 December 2013 - 11:34 PM

I bought a new 12.5" Starliner in 1975. It took about 10 months to get to me. I bought the deluxe model and, after waiting so long, asked them what the problem was. They were waiting for the 60mm guide refractor to come in. I told them to forget the refractor and send the scope. I got it about a month later. It did come in a plywood box; the tube in a coffin like unit and the mounting in a large square crate. I picked them up at Sea-Tac. I modified each crate to hold the units when I took them out observing. The tube was nice but not completely round. It had stainless steel end pieces which were strapped around the tube and screwed in. The focuser, spider, mirror and cell were nice. In those days, they quoted 1/20 wave which, as you know, didn't mean anything. I was good at null testing and using a ronchi tester and the optics were very good with just three bands across the mirror. The null test was very good. I purchased a 4" Jaegers f/15 and rings for a guide telescope. The RA drive inclosed was just a 3 to 3.5" Boston gear worm with about a 3/8" diameter worm mounted on a shaft held by one set screw. The drive had enormous periodic error. Also, the worm kept coming loose. My friend, Norm Pettinger, (Pettinger-Guiley Observatory) made me bushings to put on each end of the worm to keep it in place. This kept the worm from coming loose but the guiding was atrocious. Upon inspection with the cover off, the worm wheel flexed when I put pressure on the RA back and forth..one could see it bend! The Declination drive looked pretty but was about a 5" aluminum worm with aluminum worm on shaft. It was OK for gross correction, but had terrible backlash. My unit also had the 2" shafts and had ball bearings in both RA and Declination. As mentioned previously, one could remove the two collars off each shaft housing with their 4 allen heads each and pull those off and inspect. I finally purchased a 11. 625 inch custom Byers drive with Boding motor and had my machinest friend make housing for it. It had a plexy cover with an indicator light and was quite beautiful. Also,in the Declination, I purchased a 6" Byers drive with Boding motor also. With this new drive system, the scope performed extremely well. I must say the Starliner was a very attractive scope and the images were good. But, after I had everything modified and extra counter weights made, it weighed in close to 400 lbs. It did come in parts which I (young and strong) could manage. After all that love and work, I sold it in pristine condition and bought a C14 new I still have (Orange tube). The C14 has better resolving power and a bit more magnitude reach. Anyhow, I did it because I wanted a portable scope! I started with a 3.5" Skyscope, then a 6"RV-6 which I traded back for an 8"RV-8. I took the 8" everywhere and it gave good views but had a bit of a turned edge. A friend's custom 8"RV-8 was a spectacular scope with high definition and a very good drive.
As mentioned previously, the Starliner had wide scope rings felt lined that did turn nicely but were certainly not like the nice Cave rings. So I have been scattered in this report but I did have good optics with the 12.5. Also, I believe the Tacoma Astronomical Society had a brand new 8" Starliner deluxe and that was also a very nice telescope and the tube was better made then my 12.5". It was really a beautiful looking scope.
As Uncle Rod said, these old scopes weighed a lot, and they did not necessarily deliver with requisite drive perfection or stability. They were really intended for visual, and quality drive systems were not available...Byers was the name in town, and his drives are perfection and beauty.
Charlie Geiger

#73 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:51 AM

Hello Tim,
My name is Charles R. Brisley.My Father was the owner and manufacturer of Starliner Co.We moved from Michigan in 1962 to Tucson,Arizona.
StarLiner Co. has the best optical mirrors made back in that day,and optical mirrors do not change after 100 years. Ask the University of Arizona.They are made to be the best forever.
Go out and find a better Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4 out there and you will not find one.Everything my Father made was drawn up and patented and all hand made.The mirror,mounting,the whole mount,and even the aluminum handles were made on a lave.I have his last 12'5 Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4 telescope my Father made and it is a beauty.
Sincerely,
Charles R.Brisley.

#74 Charles Brisley

Charles Brisley

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2013

Posted 24 December 2013 - 02:27 AM

StarLiner Co.I am the son of Charles K. Brisley the owner and manufacturer.My name is Charles R. Brisley named after my Father.My dad passed away in 1999.I have the last telescope made before my Father died,It is a Cassegrain f12/Newtonian f4.All of my dads telescopes were hand made and patented.I have the last Telescope my Father made and it is a special one since it was the last one he made.My dad made the best optical mirrors and mountings ever made in that day.All aluminum and casted hand made.I should know I made them for my dad since i was a little boy.I leaned the trade in a young age and am happy i did.I am proud of my Fathers attention to detail and excellence.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Brisley.

#75 21INCHman

21INCHman

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2017
  • Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:45 PM

Just purchased a Starliner that was owned by Dr. Henry Paul.  It would appear to need some TLC, but it will be placed back into an active observing role after it is refurbished.


  • deSitter, tim53, BarabinoSr and 1 other like this


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.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics