31 replies to this topic

[Scott in NC]

I don’t know why, but until today I don’t think I had ever taken any pics of this classic Tasco 7TE-5 that I’ve owned since 2011. To the best of my recollection it has very nice optics for a 60mm scope, but I don’t believe I’ve observed with it for around 10 years or so. I really need to rectify that and take it out under the stars again soon. Anyway, I showed some pictures of it to a friend, and he suggested that I post them in the Classics forum.

 

I know that the regulars in this forum are familiar with this scope, but for those of you that don’t know, the scope and mount were both built by Royal Astro in Japan. The serial number which begins in “8” signifies that it was made in 1968. It’s in very nice shape for a 56 year old scope, and although the tube and tripod have a few marks, there’s really nothing too objectionable. I’m willing to bet that there are not many of these still around in this nice condition. The only parts that I’m aware of that aren’t original are the extension cables for the RA and Dec knobs. I believe I still have the originals, but these replacement cables work a little more smoothly.

 

This nice scope should not be confused the ubiquitous Tasco “department store junk” scopes that proliferated in the 1980s, ‘90s, and later. The 60mm f/16.7 (1000mm focal length) optics are thought by many to rival the highly coveted 60mm Unitrons of that era. I’ve never viewed through a Unitron, but I have no reason to doubt that.

 

Here are some pics—enjoy!

[Scott in NC]

[Mikeiss]

Those vintage refractors just look so cool! At F16.6, I bet the color correction is quite good too. Thanks for sharing

 

-Mike

[Steve Allison]

It exudes quality.

[CHASLX200]

Cost so much to make today.

[Joe Cepleur]

A beauty! I have one of these.

You are bit understated. The Royal Astro Tasco 7te-5 is among the very best of its era. Unitrons had wonderful mechanicals, but could be inconsistent in their optics. These Royal Astros were uniformly excellent.

Try it. You'll be surprised! You'll find yourself reaching for it because it is the right telescope for the job, not just because it is old and cool.

[Scott in NC]

I really do need to take it out under the stars again one day soon. And I should DPAC test it too, as I’ve never tested a long focal ratio achromat from this era.

[stevenk]

Beautiful scope Scott

 

There is an Astro Optical branded version on the ....y site located in Japan. 

It looks brand new - I haven't seen one up for sale in years.

If anyone is interested PM me and I will send the link.  

 

These models have a definite following- they don't make them like that anymore.    

 

Steve

[deSitter]

IMG_4580.jpeg

IMG_4571.jpeg

IMG_4568.jpeg

IMG_4574.jpeg

IMG_4578.jpeg

Notice there are no screws holding the focuser to the tube. It actually screws in! And the thread is the same as on the Tasco 10TE-5. If you can find another focuser, you can modify it with a 1.25" drain pipe and have a drop-in 1.25" solution without changing the stock focuser. Some of the older 60/910mm AO scopes have a focuser that can take the Vixen adapter - these do not have a drawtube, rather, a single long focuser tube. That also has the same screw-in thread.

 

-drl

[Scott in NC]

Thanks for all the comments, everyone. I plan to take it out again soon, hopefully the next clear spring night that I get. 

[deSitter]

IMG_4580.jpeg

IMG_4571.jpeg

IMG_4568.jpeg

IMG_4574.jpeg

IMG_4578.jpeg

The fittings here are a mix of nickel-plated brass and chrome-plated brass. On my Monolux 4380, an AO scope from 1963, the fittings are all nickel-plated brass. In my experience, the latter tends to hold up better over time and I've come to much prefer it, although if in good condition the chrome fittings are nice to look at.

 

The mount on my scope is identical to this one, other than being finished in wrinkle grey. It is my favorite classic mount. Could easily hold a 3" refractor, and is extremely smooth with almost no backlash in either axis. The RA mechanism is very tricky to get properly aligned, but once done, it holds indefinitely.

 

-drl

[Joe Cepleur]

Notice there are no screws holding the focuser to the tube. It actually screws in! And the thread is the same as on the Tasco 10TE-5. If you can find another focuser, you can modify it with a 1.25" drain pipe and have a drop-in 1.25" solution without changing the stock focuser. Some of the older 60/910mm AO scopes have a focuser that can take the Vixen adapter - these do not have a drawtube, rather, a single long focuser tube. That also has the same screw-in thread.

-drl

Many of us with this scope have just replaced the original draw tube with a 1.25" drain pipe and some kind of 1.25" visual back, and then stored the original in the cabinet so that all the original parts stay with the kit. Admittedly, that does not allow simply screwing into place a second focuser with an original visual back for display, but there is no need to "find another focuser" to prepare the scope for observing. If anything, the modified draw tube is a good conversation piece about the virtues of 1.25" eye pieces over 0.965-inch. I don't think I've felt any inclination to even see the original draw tube since I bought my scope eleven years ago!

Tenacious wrote an excellent thread some years back about how to make this conversation. I have seen some others since.

[deSitter]

Many of us with this scope have just replaced the original draw tube with a 1.25" drain pipe and some kind of 1.25" visual back, and then stored the original in the cabinet so that all the original parts stay with the kit. Admittedly, that does not allow simply screwing into place a second focuser with an original visual back for display, but there is no need to "find another focuser" to prepare the scope for observing. If anything, the modified draw tube is a good conversation piece about the virtues of 1.25" eye pieces over 0.965-inch. I don't think I've felt any inclination to even see the original draw tube since I bought my scope eleven years ago!

Tenacious wrote an excellent thread some years back about how to make this conversation. I have seen some others since.

Yeah I miss that guy! He sent me one of his modified drain pipe adapters. I'm still using it!

 

-drl

[Kitfox]

I really do need to take it out under the stars again one day soon. And I should DPAC test it too, as I’ve never tested a long focal ratio achromat from this era.

 

 

Do not dare try to put this beauty on an Alt Az....and please find a nice set of 0.965" eyepieces for it, nothing under 80mm ever wants for more 

 

I do anxiously await a boring, cloudy day off when you decide it's time for a few bench tests on this, I think you will be surprised at the quality of the DPAC images, even in white light.

[Joe Cepleur]

Yeah I miss that guy! He sent me one of his modified drain pipe adapters. I'm still using it!

-drl

He sent me one too. I'll use it always.

[Scott in NC]

Do not dare try to put this beauty on an Alt Az....and please find a nice set of 0.965" eyepieces for it, nothing under 80mm ever wants for more 

 

I do anxiously await a boring, cloudy day off when you decide it's time for a few bench tests on this, I think you will be surprised at the quality of the DPAC images, even in white light.

Don’t worry—this scope will stay on its original Royal Astro EQ mount, and I believe it came with an original set of “poke your eye out” 0.965” eyepieces. Although the last few times I used it I used a hybrid 1.25”/0.965” diagonal so I could use it with TeleVue Plössls instead.

[Joe Cepleur]

(P)lease find a nice set of 0.965" eyepieces for it, nothing under 80mm ever wants for more

To be clear for sake of the OP, who is new to this class of telescope: Upgrading to 1.25" eyepieces is the single most important thing you can do. They allow wider fields of view. This helps you to find objects and see them in context. Modern designs are also generally easier to use, offering more eye relief than the typical eyepieces that came with the telescope. This change liberates the telescope from the confines of what eyepieces were back in 1968, allowing it to truly show how fine it is.

[Kitfox]

To be clear for sake of the OP, who is new to this class of telescope: Upgrading to 1.25" eyepieces is the single most important thing you can do. They allow wider fields of view. This helps you to find objects and see them in context. Modern designs are also generally easier to use, offering more eye relief than the typical eyepieces that came with the telescope. This change liberates the telescope from the confines of what eyepieces were back in 1968, allowing it to truly show how fine it is.

 

I won't argue with this, but I do hate the look of that funny diagonal on the rear of that gorgeous tube...  Although I can't resist one tiny rebuttal, some of the best planetary and lunar eyepieces ever made are "poke your eye out" in diameter!!!

[Scott in NC]

To be clear for sake of the OP, who is new to this class of telescope: 

Well, not really. This may be the only one of its kind that I own, but I’ve owned it since 2011. But you’re right, I do enjoy using it more with more modern 1.25” eyepieces. Even if what I’m calling “modern” eyepieces are 20-30 year old TeleVue Plössls.

[Scott in NC]

I won't argue with this, but I do hate the look of that funny diagonal on the rear of that gorgeous tube...  Although I can't resist one tiny rebuttal, some of the best planetary and lunar eyepieces ever made are "poke your eye out" in diameter!!!

I do believe I have the original 0.965” diagonal in the scope’s wooden case. And the “poke your eye out comment” actually wasn’t meant to disparage the original eyepieces. It was actually a reference to the fact that the first time I used this scope I literally did put my eye a little too close to it in the dark and got quite a surprise!

[Joe Cepleur]

(S)ome of the best planetary and lunar eyepieces ever made are "poke your eye out" in diameter!!!

True, absolutely. There is no question that there are finely made 0.965" eyepieces, and that only the center truly matters once a target is found. It's just that most that one is likely to stumble upon are junk, all have narrow fields of view, and all require tight tolerances for aligning the eye to the image.

My 7te-5 came with a marvelous set of 0.965" Huygenians, offering sharp images and great contrast with little to no false color. They also feature virtually no eye relief and can not be used with eye glasses. I save them for rare use testing 0.965" telescopes.

Edited by Joe Cepleur, 04 March 2024 - 10:11 PM.

[Ian King]

True, absolutely. There is no question that there are finely made 0.965" eyepieces, and that only the center truly matters once a target is found. It's just that most that one is likely to stumble upon are junk, all have narrow fields of view, and all require tight tolerances for aligning the eye to the image.

My 7te-5 came with a marvelous set of 0.965" Huygenians, offering sharp images and great contrast with little to no false color. They also feature virtually no eye relief and can not be used with eye glasses. I save them for rare use testing 0.965" telescopes.

I have accumulated loads of 0.965" eyepieces over the years, I wear glasses and have astigmatism in both eyes, but with these short focal length eyepieces that have next to no eye relief, the exit pupil is so narrow that there is no need to bother wearing glasses.

 

That said; I still prefer using high quality modern 1.25" diagonals and eyepieces due to the superior coatings.

[Joe Cepleur]

I wear glasses and have astigmatism in both eyes, but with these short focal length eyepieces that have next to no eye relief, the exit pupil is so narrow that there is no need to bother wearing glasses.

It's not that I can not see without my glasses. I need to adjust the focuser so radically that switching between me and anyone else disrupts the flow of the viewing. It's also a pain to be always switching between wearing my glasses to roughly point the telescope in the sky, and removing them to reach the eye relief of the eyepiece. Having widened the draw tube, larger eyepieces with more modern designs and larger field stops also allow wider fields of view.

While there are great 0.965" eyepieces, in general, everything 1.25" eyepieces is better. The widest field of view I can get with my 0.965" eyepieces comes from a good 40mm Modified Achromat eyepiece, but the field of view and the quality of the image are both better with either a modern 1.25" 32mm or 40mm Plossl.

Edited by Joe Cepleur, 05 March 2024 - 04:36 AM.

[CHASLX200]

To be clear for sake of the OP, who is new to this class of telescope: Upgrading to 1.25" eyepieces is the single most important thing you can do. They allow wider fields of view. This helps you to find objects and see them in context. Modern designs are also generally easier to use, offering more eye relief than the typical eyepieces that came with the telescope. This change liberates the telescope from the confines of what eyepieces were back in 1968, allowing it to truly show how fine it is.

A set of Delites would be a delite for that scope. I remember how bad them small eyepieces were with a straw like FOV and nose bleed ER. But some high end .965 eyepieces would be a good upgrade.

[deSitter]

To be clear for sake of the OP, who is new to this class of telescope: Upgrading to 1.25" eyepieces is the single most important thing you can do. They allow wider fields of view. This helps you to find objects and see them in context. Modern designs are also generally easier to use, offering more eye relief than the typical eyepieces that came with the telescope. This change liberates the telescope from the confines of what eyepieces were back in 1968, allowing it to truly show how fine it is.

Yes, the inherent flaw of slow refractors is difficulty getting low-power views. With 1.25" you can use up to a 40mm Plossl with a AFOV that maxes out the barrel, about 45 degrees. Still it is fun to use these scopes in period context. Also fun to run them up to maximum tripod height and look straight through, UP at the sky, no diagonal.

 

-drl