Priastro

It's two ways to measure obstruction one is by diameter and the other is by area I see mostly that the measure with diameter is common. More important is to know which of them is in the context.

Now here I have found one answer:

Skywatcher Skyliner-355PX / 14' f/4,5 Dobson einschiebbarer Tubu

They will tell us 80 mm secondary which will give 22.5% obstruction by diameter. That seems more resonable. Maybe Stuart or Tom can verify. They will also tell us of a rockerboxweight of 50kg and the OTA 32kg, which is not true.

I wonder about the secondary mirror size. According to skywatchers homepage the secondary for the 350 is at huge 93 mm wich will give over 26% obstruction. I think this is not correct spec. For the 300 it is 70 mm wich will give 23.3 % obstruction.

Is that correct spec?

That sounds very good, the 300 is better than 10" LX200R in high mag planetary viewing, There must be good optics.

How about the manual movement of a goto compared with a one with no servo motors. Is there a clutch, so the OTA i free?

Thanks, that is a very good advice. I have measured and find i possible to get the 14" back in a Volvo V70, the mounting undemounted, but there vill be more room for further luggage with the 14" demounted than the 12" undemountable. By myself I reflect the choice of the 14", the 12", Orionoptics VX12L 1/10 pv and the celestron C11. I have already an EQ6 and an C8 for my balcony. I want beside better deep sky performance also a planet performer in a transportable size. I think the Orionoptics is the best choice.

Thank you Stuart. Where did you bought such a magnetic weight? Did found it meaningful to zoom in down to 3mm if now the seeing permitted it without the image suffering?

That's mean that the 12" mounting comes mounted from fabric and is not demountable? Another question is about balancing of the 14", switching from a heavy eyepiece combination like nagler 31 + paracorr to a small eyepiece. How sensible is the 14" in the balance? Do you Rossco42 have tested with high magnication eyepieces. I see you have a nagler zoom there?

An EQ6 can manage an C11. An C11 have considerably more central obstruction than an sw 350, so the contrast would be better for the 350. But the C11 have f/10 and 350 have f/4.5. f/10 is better for high magnifications because the longer focal ratio is more forgiving for the eyepiece. However there are eyepieces like Naglers and Pentax SW wich can manage focal ratios down to f/4. So I wonder if anyone has tested.

/Martin

Hello

I wonder beside the 350:s deep sky capabilitiy, how it manage high magnifications and planet viewing compared to an Celestron C11 using high end eyepieces?

/Martin