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

CPC 9.25" and 1100 Question

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#26 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29667
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 04 December 2018 - 07:45 AM

My CPC11 fork assembly  weighs 65 pounds and is about 31 inches tall. I’m only 5’6” and that makes it a pretty big package for me to lift and carry.  That said, after I practiced lifting it onto the tripod and removing it a couple times, it’s not really that bad. The handles on the side and bottom make lifting and carrying it pretty easy once you get it off the floor. 

 

The Cpc11 is rock solid, and very comfortable to use compared to my EQ mount with a refractor on it. Not that I don’t like the EQ mount, but a fork mounted sct IMO is just a pleasure to use. No matter what size you decide on, you will be very happy with a CPC. 

 

For reference, here I am holding my CPC11.

I'm 5'6" as well, but only 140 lbs.  The CPC11 fork assembly would be almost half my weight.  I don't know if I'd want to hoist a 65 lb fork assembly onto a tripod.  

 

Mike


  • Procyon and Rixavatar like this

#27 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29667
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 04 December 2018 - 08:14 AM

It's actually great when it's leaning on your chest at times. Watch those patio floor ledges though. I got the hang of the CPC 11" and carry it in one setting with the mount and tripod. But that's only a 5 foot trip. 2 trips are necessary for dark sites. I'd probably avoid this telescope if it needed storage over 2 flights of stairs.

Plan ahead before gripping the 2 side grip handles. Without those I would not really want this telescope. It is a bit intimidating in the beginning for someone who's coming from a 6 or 8".

Celestron really nailed their location. You should be ok if you can bench press about one big plate.

In my house, I'd have to take the CPC 11" down a flight of stairs, then out onto the porch, down six more steps and then around to the back of my building.  So not something for viewing at home. 

 

If I only took it to a dark site, I'd still have to bring it down all those stairs to carry it to my car, then back up all those stairs when I came back home.  I have enough trouble with a 10" solid-tube Dob.  The OTA with rings and in the carry bag is 42 lbs.  

 

65 lbs for the CPC 11"?  Weight lifting is not one of my hobbies.  But it would be more compact and less cumbersome than the 10" Dob OTA, so that might make the CPC 11" easier to move around.

 

If I were to buy an 11" SCT, it would be just the OTA for the EdgeHD version.  The OTA by itself is 28 lbs.  That's not bad.  28 lbs vs 65 lbs.  Less than half the weight!

 

I would mount it on my DM6 on T-Pod 110.  The DM6 has a 40 lb LC, the T-Pod 110 220 lb.  No forks for me.  I don't need goto, and I'm used to not having tracking.

 

Mike 


Edited by Sarkikos, 04 December 2018 - 08:27 AM.

  • Procyon and Rixavatar like this

#28 mplkn1

mplkn1

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Centrally Inaccessible, PA

Posted 07 December 2018 - 08:50 AM

I'm among those who have had repeated back surgeries, four thus far, and my spine is fused (currently) from L2 to S1. I've owned a CPC1100 for many years. My experiences with liftng it have evolved with my orthopedic history.

As a dead lift from table height to mount the combined CPC fork/OTA assembly on the tripod, I found the general layout and placement of its handles to be conducive to mitigating any strain, especially if you can keep the whole thing close to your body as you handle it.

The killer for me was mounting the fork/OTA assembly on the Celestron wedge. This entailed holding it out at an angle to engage the mounting points on the wedge. I did it exactly once, then never again. The experience became the final step in my gradual but probably inevitable decision to unfork the CPC1100 and move to a CGX mount.

Now all is well. I can handle the individual components alright, and have a good working setup for visual and imaging at multiple focal lengths. I put the forks up for sale and they sold instantly; there's definitely a market for working spare subassemblies. With all the inquiries I received, I could have sold five or six fork assemblies in that single day.

So the integration of the CPC1100 presents a multi-sided set of considerations. How it suits you will depend on your use cases.

Best wishes,
mplkn
  • Sarkikos and Rixavatar like this

#29 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23587
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 07 December 2018 - 12:04 PM

Just taken as a question about the two scopes, I have owned C9.25 and C11, and hands down, I thought the C11 was a notably better scope in terms of both DSO and solar system observing. 

 

The package is ergonomic.  As an example, I think it was easier to left the C11 fork setup than it is to lift the 50 lb. OTA of my 12" truss dob.   The handles are well placed and if you straight arm the bottom handle and let it carry the weight, you can slightly lean back and use the side handle to steady the load, and can move it from waist high flat surface to a waist high mount and back with less effort than one would think.

 

Notice though that I was very careful with the conditions for easy movement.  As long as you always pick it up and set it down on a waist high surface, all is pretty good.

 

If though you have to get it into a car trunk or back seat, it can be very difficult to do so and can require considerable strength (I am 6" and 180 lbs) and when I owned the 1100 NexStar (early version of the CPC) I sometimes struggled with it.

 

The other nice thing about the C11 is that it is the most binoviewer friendly SCT.  The baffles are loose so it can tolerate a lot of back focus without aperture loss.  The C9.25 is the worst of the Celetron SCTs in this respect.


  • Rixavatar likes this

#30 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 29667
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 07 December 2018 - 02:39 PM

But that all depends on how high your waist is.  Mine is relatively low, so I don't like hoisting a heavy, cumbersome load up on a mount if I can help it.  With a Dob, you don't have to lift the OTA up very high before you set it in the mount.

 

Mike


Edited by Sarkikos, 08 December 2018 - 12:07 AM.

  • Rixavatar likes this

#31 photoracer18

photoracer18

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Posted 07 December 2018 - 04:37 PM

There is a difference optically between the original 9.25 and the other SCTs at the time. Reason one was the original 9.25 was designed by Vixen as some kind of project. The regular SCT optics (non-Edge) were all approximately F2 primaries with 5x secondaries. The 9.25 was about an f2.5 primary with a 4x secondary. The reason the tube is longer in relation to the diameter than the others. Also most believe that the F2.5 primary reduces off-axis coma compared to an F2 primary and creates a slightly wider flat field than the others. This is why imagers liked it in particular (me for one) in the days before the Edge scopes. If you have something like a Denkmeier binoviewer you will find that the SCT OCS module is different than the one that works on all the rest (I was the one that found this out while being one of their beta testers because I had my CG-9.25 then). I sold my 9.25 after many years of use and eventually picked up a c11 OTA. There is a definite weight difference although less between the 9.25 and 11 than between the 9.25 and the 8. At my age the C11 is a little too big and heavy to stick on my G11 G1 easily so I am seriously considering going back to a 9.25. But the way I do things now it might be so late that I will need to go down to an 8 (in which case I might as well get an Edge model). My CG-9.25 was the one with the metal focuser with the digital counter and for those that have not owned one there is also a focus lock lever under the rectangular plate as part of the focuser shaft (pretty sure it was designed originally for shipping purposes).

Edited by photoracer18, 07 December 2018 - 04:38 PM.

  • Sarkikos and Rixavatar like this

#32 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 08 December 2018 - 02:33 AM

Does the 9.25 have same size baffle tube as the 11? Wanting to use big eyepieces, say 41 Panoptic or ES100 30mm, which scope would cope best?


  • Rixavatar likes this

#33 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6122
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 08 December 2018 - 03:06 AM

Baffle Opening Diameters:

C14 / 54mm
C11 / 54mm
9.25 Edge / 54mm

C9.25 / 46mm
8 Edge / 42mm
C8 / 37mm
C6 / 27mm
C5 / 27mm

ES 30mm 100 52.4mm field stop

1.01 degrees in a C11, 99x

1.22 degrees (about) in a 9.25E, 82x

Added 100mm extra fl for 2" diagonals (46mm+ clear aperture) and full 2" aperture vb.

Edited by Procyon, 08 December 2018 - 03:26 AM.

  • mplkn1, Sarkikos, 25585 and 1 other like this

#34 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 08 December 2018 - 09:24 AM

Baffle Opening Diameters:

C14 / 54mm
C11 / 54mm
9.25 Edge / 54mm

C9.25 / 46mm
8 Edge / 42mm
C8 / 37mm
C6 / 27mm
C5 / 27mm

ES 30mm 100 52.4mm field stop

1.01 degrees in a C11, 99x

1.22 degrees (about) in a 9.25E, 82x

Added 100mm extra fl for 2" diagonals (46mm+ clear aperture) and full 2" aperture vb.

Many thanks. The Deluxe CPC 9.25 is best then waytogo.gif  


  • Procyon likes this

#35 mplkn1

mplkn1

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Centrally Inaccessible, PA

Posted 09 December 2018 - 07:35 AM

I should probably mention that the handle locations on the CGX head are likewise excellent. Celestron seems to have factored ease of handling the individual components into their design of this mount.

This all means that the CGX, and anything it can hold, are all fair game for reasonable use at a star party. I've recently added the 11" RASA to the stable. With its handle and rail placement, even it is something I can still handle by myself, with care.

I agree with the sentiment that the CPC1100, as originally fork-mounted, is fantastically well suited to visual use. I sometimes think I should trade off my 8" Edge OTA for a CPC800, Edge or non-Edge, for visual use while imaging with the de-forked CPC1100 or the RASA. 


Edited by mplkn1, 09 December 2018 - 07:37 AM.

  • Rixavatar likes this

#36 Wire

Wire

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Dundalk, MD

Posted 11 December 2018 - 04:45 PM

I have a Celestron 11" SCT and it's 28 pounds. I mount it on my CGEM II mount which is 40 pounds. The 9.25 SCT is 20 pounds. I'm 66 and in pretty good shape, but believe me this set up takes a lot out of me. Looking back I should have purchased the 9.25. That extra 8 pounds on the 11 does make a difference lifting it up. 


  • Sarkikos and Rixavatar 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