360 replies to this topic

[bobhen]

If telescopes were free and I had to use them within my current living situation/location and at a my current age, I could still easily manage and would love to own a classic…

 

1. Brandon 130mm refractor on a Unitron alt/az mount.

 

2. OTI Quantum 4” Maksutov

 

3. Astro-Physics Traveler on the Carton alt/az mount that Astro-Physics used to market.

 

I still have all the brochures (there in there somewhere) and at one time gave each serious consideration.

 

 

 

Bob

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[CHASLX200]

A pre mint and complete 1965 or older Unitron 3 to 5" would be on my list as well. But finding a old one that does not have the black paint going bad or a non fogged up lens is getting harder to find.  Never had a 3" yet other than the RFT version. The 4" i had was mint as could get minus the lens had to be cleaned and still some fog left on it. 

[Bomber Bob]

Taking a break from wrapping...

 

Thanks BB!  Your SxS is consistent with how I imagined they would compare.  On deep-sky, it makes sense that the Questar might pull ahead, having a bit more aperture and slightly faster focal ratio (15.8 vs 14.4).  Did you ever have need to tweak the Questar's collimation?

 

I don't have a line on a Questar.  Being somewhat frugal, I would probably use that kind of cash for some other purpose or project.  I certainly appreciate fine engineering though, in telescopes and many other categories, too....

Yes, my Q needed collimation:  Questar put a slash mark on the corrector's edge, and that has to be aligned.  And, my 1958 uses a Bakelite retaining ring to hold the corrector.  Over the years, it had deteriorated (which is why the corrector slipped in the first place).  I removed the ring, planed it (I can hear the gasps of Q Owners, but I'm talking about onion-skin thin shavings), cleaned it, and now it holds the lens down securely.  While it was open, I used my puffer & brush to clean the interior.  What really needs attention is the Control Box, but that'll have to come off -- and I am Very Reluctant to do that.  I've cleaned all the optics I can reach from the outside, but the inner face of the Barlow needs cleaning.  I don't use it.

 

Otherwise, it doesn't require much care.  I have it on display in our prettiest guest room, and it just seems to fit there:  Small, beautiful, and unassuming.  I got it originally as my Over-The-Hill scope, but I need to use it more often than just in the Spring...

[jim kuhns]

A classic orange Celestron C-11 on an original sand cast mount with all the bell and whistles.   

[Terra Nova]

An interesting and surprising admission.  It seems that everyone in the forums drops on one knee when speaking about their Questars....    I've never looked through one.   I'd love to read of a shoot-out between a Questar and Royal Optical 76.2 f/15.7 or even a well figured and collimated 11TE-5.  I'm sure the Questar impresses with its mechanical precision, attention to ergonomic detail, general execution in a small package, and outstanding consistency in optical quality.    But does the observer really see more?   I think I know the outcome -> my failing is wanting to see it in writting.....

I’ve seen Jupiter and Saturn with an RAO Tasco 10TE (my brother-in-law’s) side by side with Questar Standard with Cervit mirror (my brothers) and they are very close with a slight nod going to the Questar with regard to color fidelity, contrast, AND sharpness. I did the same thing with my late 1950s 3” F16 Unitron and my Questar Standard with BroadBand coatings, and the Questar again was slightly ahead. Also there was a quantum difference in portability and setup (My Unitron was on the heavy 142 Unitron mount). In fact, that’s why I sold the Unitron. I only decided to sell my Questar because I started using my Tak FC-76 on my Vixen Porta Mount instead of a heavier GEM. Suddenly the FC-76 became a very easy transport and setup. The images were pretty-much equal and I think only differed with momentary changes in seeing if at all. Plus the Tak was capable of much wider fields being F8 instead of F14. And I had a lot of money invested in the Questar. So for me, the Questar experience is in no way matched with a 3” F15 to 18 achromat, no matter if its RAO or even Goto (yep, had one of those too). With the Questar you are getting optical, mechanical, and portability excellence. Get a premium medium focal length apo and you will give it a run for its money, but other than that and the Quester earns the respect it deserves.

[clamchip]

The more I think about this the more telescopes come to mind.

Here's a few more I'd like:

 

Porter Garden Telescope https://americanhist...ct/nmah_1184878

I would like the real thing of course but I would be happy with a accurate reproduction or

better yet a casting kit.

 

Porter Springfield

Again a casting kit of raw castings I can machine.

I especially like this one because the eyepiece remains stationary while the telescope moves

about the sky. Perfect for me because I love observing seated.

Robert

 

Edited by clamchip, 24 December 2021 - 12:42 PM.

[CHASLX200]

A classic orange Celestron C-11 on an original sand cast mount with all the bell and whistles.   

My friend got a 1982 C11 and it was like new in 1998 and it was total mush.  But i would love a freaky sharp C11.

[Bomber Bob]

I’ve seen Jupiter and Saturn with an RAO Tasco 10TE (my brother-in-law’s) side by side with Questar Standard with Cervit mirror (my brothers) and they are very close with a slight nod going to the Questar with regard to color fidelity, contrast, AND sharpness. I did the same thing with my late 1950s 3” F16 Unitron and my Questar Standard with BroadBand coatings, and the Questar again was slightly ahead. Also there was a quantum difference in portability and setup (My Unitron was on the heavy 142 Unitron mount). In fact, that’s why I sold the Unitron. I only decided to sell my Questar because I started using my Tak FC-76 on my Vixen Porta Mount instead of a heavier GEM. Suddenly the FC-76 became a very easy transport and setup. The images were pretty-much equal and I think only differed with momentary changes in seeing if at all. Plus the Tak was capable of much wider fields being F8 instead of F14. And I had a lot of money invested in the Questar. So for me, the Questar experience is in no way matched with a 3” F15 to 18 achromat, no matter if its RAO or even Goto (yep, had one of those too). With the Questar you are getting optical, mechanical, and portability excellence. Get a premium medium focal length apo and you will give it a run for its money, but other than that and the Quester earns the respect it deserves.

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I can see a high-quality 3" APO on a light-weight platform beating my old Questar...  should'a kept my Vixen FL80S.  I lurv my C80 on the Mizar SP, but it doesn't have the Q's Cool Factor.  Now... an FC-76 or Mizar FA-80 Blue Tube... that could be the ticket!

[Bowlerhat]

My days have really slowed down but there are still many scopes i would love to try out. Top on my list is another shot at a fork mounted C14 with freaky sharp optics. Mine was a total dud when i bought it in 1996.  So what is on your wish list to buy guys and gals?

An atlas 60mm, or a nagamitsu 60. Which means I probably won't see a listing of it ever anyway

 

I won't be buying anything else!!

That's what they said...

[Bomber Bob]

An atlas 60mm, or a nagamitsu 60. Which means I probably won't see a listing of it ever anyway

 

That's what they said...

Do you mean... this Atlas 60mm:

 

[Bowlerhat]

Do you mean... this Atlas 60mm:

 

Atlas Restore T63 - OTA Complete (RS FL).jpg

Yer' really rubbing some lemons on my wound, bob.

[deSitter]

The only scopes that would tempt me would be a like new RV-6 and C9.25, both I have owned and loved in the past.

Oh yes! That C9.25 is the only SCT I want. But my next scope is a 7" Mak. It is curious why the C9.25 even exists, and why it is so good!

 

-drl

[deSitter]

The more I think about this the more telescopes come to mind.

Here's a few more I'd like:

 

Porter Garden Telescope https://americanhist...ct/nmah_1184878

I would like the real thing of course but I would be happy with a accurate reproduction or

better yet a casting kit.

 

Porter Springfield

Again a casting kit of raw castings I can machine.

I especially like this one because the eyepiece remains stationary while the telescope moves

about the sky. Perfect for me because I love observing seated.

Robert

 

1544706148-img.jpg

Clarence Custer, M.D. - the dude I wanted to be when I was 10 Notice the elbow scope finder! The Telrad of 1965!

 

-drl

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by deSitter, 25 December 2021 - 01:32 AM.

[Paul Sweeney]

I had that book too when I was a kid. How I drooled over that scope. Made me realize how small my 60mm Tasco really was.

[CHASLX200]

Oh yes! That C9.25 is the only SCT I want. But my next scope is a 7" Mak. It is curious why the C9.25 even exists, and why it is so good!

 

-drl

I think the mirror is a slower speed and not as fussy as normal SCT's. I had a 6" SW Mak and it was a killer so a 7" that is just as good would be a great scope.
 

[Bomber Bob]

Yer' really rubbing some lemons on my wound, bob.

Sorry!!  I honestly didn't know these oddballs were desirable...  Mine is 99% a Display Scope... almost a Novelty Scope with its tiny barrel eyepieces, and nearly impractical balancing design...

 

Yet, it's made very well.  Makes No Sense!!

[Jacques]

Okay, it makes no sense, and is border-line insane given that I have a near-perfect Tak FC-100, but...

 

Carton CST-100KX F13:   https://www.cloudyni...-2#entry6230624

 

I just wanna look through one -- that might break the fevre dream...

That one or an Antares 105 (95 actually)mm F13.

[Terra Nova]

Clarence Custer, M.D. - the dude I wanted to be when I was 10 Notice the elbow scope finder! The Telrad of 1965!

 

-drl

I have always moved that picture since I first saw it over fifty years ago in the Sky Observer’s Handbook:

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Bowlerhat]

Sorry!!  I honestly didn't know these oddballs were desirable...  Mine is 99% a Display Scope... almost a Novelty Scope with its tiny barrel eyepieces, and nearly impractical balancing design...

 

Yet, it's made very well.  Makes No Sense!!

Maybe not so much, but novelty is desirable to me. I love oddballs!

[Bomber Bob]

Maybe not so much, but novelty is desirable to me. I love oddballs!

I'm glad I'm not the only one!!

 

Since you're an admirer of the ATLAS, what do you think of these improvements:

 

- Paint the eyepiece cap interiors flat black -- that shiny metal hurts the views.

- Have my local machinists repair / patch the chunk of pot metal that snapped off the lens cell in shipment; or, if that's not practical, have them make a new machined aluminum cell for it -- with the same dimensions.

- Have JD powder-coat the tube back to its original white.  (My rattle-can cranberry didn't turn out that well on the short tube.)  I'll paint the trim parts satin or flat black.

 

I don't have the original mount, so for now it's on that cheap old Carton yoke alt/az with the ludicrously thin wood-slat legs; which, oddly enough, is in mint condition.  This Oddball is a actually a very good F15 refractor -- it performs in spite of its goofy traits.  It rides well on the Mizar SP, too.

[oldmanastro]

Yep!

You were lucky. I couldn't get my siblings interested at all and neither my son.  My hopes are now in my granddaughter. I'm working on it. 

[oldmanastro]

Clarence Custer, M.D. - the dude I wanted to be when I was 10 Notice the elbow scope finder! The Telrad of 1965!

 

-drl

I saw this telescope in 1966 for the first time in the Henry E. Paul book "Outer Space Photography" 1963 edition. It was impressive. Being 13 years old at the time I could just imagine sitting in that chair at the Springfield focus of this behemoth. The only telescope I had was my 2.4" refractor. Here's the page from the book with the telescope image and two photos that Dr. Custer took with that instrument.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Terra Nova]

I saw this telescope in 1966 for the first time in the Henry E. Paul book "Outer Space Photography" 1963 edition. It was impressive. Being 13 years old at the time I could just imagine sitting in that chair at the Springfield focus of this behemoth. The only telescope I had was my 2.4" refractor. Here's the page from the book with the telescope image and two photos that Dr. Custer took with that instrument.

I love still having most all of my old books from when I first started in our wonderful hobby.

[Bowlerhat]

I'm glad I'm not the only one!!

 

Since you're an admirer of the ATLAS, what do you think of these improvements:

 

- Paint the eyepiece cap interiors flat black -- that shiny metal hurts the views.

- Have my local machinists repair / patch the chunk of pot metal that snapped off the lens cell in shipment; or, if that's not practical, have them make a new machined aluminum cell for it -- with the same dimensions.

- Have JD powder-coat the tube back to its original white.  (My rattle-can cranberry didn't turn out that well on the short tube.)  I'll paint the trim parts satin or flat black.

 

I don't have the original mount, so for now it's on that cheap old Carton yoke alt/az with the ludicrously thin wood-slat legs; which, oddly enough, is in mint condition.  This Oddball is a actually a very good F15 refractor -- it performs in spite of its goofy traits.  It rides well on the Mizar SP, too.

-Hmm..somehow though, since the atlas eyepieces are shiny..but for practicality, maybe yes

-I think new cell would be better

-100% yes, but cranberry is an odd colour, I love old scopes with colour schemes-and the plum is clever throwback to the name. So 50/50 on this one. white for faithful restoration, plum for own scheme.

[Bomber Bob]

Thanks!

 

I repainted the tops of a few antique eyepieces where the original (enamel?) faded / rubbed off.  The glass in these 3 Atlas units is good; but in use, the least bit of incidental / external light is distracting (all those reflections!) -- especially when splitting doubles...

 

Yeah, the pot metal lens cell is thin -- and brittle.  The Shipping proved it.

 

Next month, I'll check with JD on plum colors -- see what he can do.  (I got inspired on colorful old refractors from photos of some Victorian-era scopes.  Some makers made their products real works of art.)

Edited by Bomber Bob, 26 December 2021 - 10:36 AM.