John

Here is an interesting article on modifying the AZ-3 mount by Antony McEwen of the Highlands Astronomical Society: Highlands Astronomical Society | AZ-3 Mount Mod (spacegazer.com) And he has written one on generally servicing the AZ-3 as well: Highlands Astronomical Society | AZ-3 Servicing (spacegazer.com)

I have used the UK Astro Buy & Sell website a lot and it works well. My experiences in both buying and selling have been positive. Here is a link to the site: U.K. Astronomy Buy & Sell (astrobuysell.com)

The 30mm UFF is a 2 inch format eyepiece. It gets great reviews. Some prefer it to the Pentax XW 30mm which shows the sort of level it is at. A long way ahead of the stock eyepieces. The 24mm UFF is a 1.25 inch format eyepiece which is also highly regarded.

I use artificial light generally but daylight works the same. Yours looks OK to me. If you star test your diffraction rings at high power, either side of focus, should be concentric around the central airy disk. I reckon yours will be looking at that.

The AZ-3 is a chinese copy of the Vixen Custom Alt-Az mount. Vixen had a counterweight arm as an accessory for the mount. With the chinese version, you have to do a DIY job.

Woody Allen used to tell a gag about a bunch of palaeontologists that found his wife's shoe on the street in Manhattan. From it they reconstructed a dinosaur 😉

I use the cheshire collimator check inside and, if clear, a star test to follow up. That should pick up any mis-alignment of the focuser or objective.

I've found the AZ-3's useful for small, short scopes such as the ST80, 90mm mak-cass and a PST. I even put a C5 SCT on one for a while and it worked OK - not with the Ethos eyepiece though !

I have a similar arrangement on my Altair 70mm Starwave. There has been a little trial and error getting the tension of the 3 recessed screws right. I want to be able to rotate the focuser reasonably smoothly when the larger screw is loosened but don't want it to sag. Some times rough spots are created if one or more of the screws are overtightened at some point and dig pits into the flange that they bear against.

I suspect consensus is going to be elusive on this one ....... 🙂

I ought to re-phrase this for the sake of historical cleanliness - I used to drool near the Vixen 4 inch refractors, not actually over them, of course 🙄 (just in case anyone who later bought one is reading this !)

It looks identical to the old Tasco 11T "Lunagrosso" newtonian. If you can get it for a really low price it might be fun to use to look at the moon and a few of the more obvious sights. Set your exprectations accordingly - that mount will be wobbly and the eyepieces are likely to be the old .965 inch ones !

I've tended to think of myself as a space tourist - I like to see the sights of the Universe 🙂

I tend to use the terms illustrated here by David Knisely: @Nik271 makes a very good point about the impact that uneven brightness of component stars has as well 👍 I'm sure I read somewhere about minimum magnifications needed to enable the human eye to see the resolution that the optics are capable of showing but I can't recall what it is 🤔 This CN thread covers this but it's quite detailed: On Magnification for Resolving Double Stars - Double Star Observing - Cloudy Nights

I had the 22mm T4 Nagler for a while (my first "big" Tele Vue) and really enjoyed it. The "instajust" feature incorporated into the upper section of the eyepiece took some getting used to though !

I used to drool over the Vixen 4 inch refractors at Telescope House in the Farringdon Road, London back in the late 1980's. This was Broadhurst Clarkson and Fuller's base back then, complete with brass tube pulling workshop in the basement I believe. I occasionally chatted to Dud Fuller - he used to hang around at the back of the showroom dispensing advice. The Vixen SP102M's looked lovely and might just have been affordable to me but fluorite ones were definitely out of my financial reach back then. Bear in mind that the achromatic SP102M's were priced at nearly £1,000 including the mount and tripod. I have actually owned two Vixen scopes, a pre-owned SP102M which was my 2nd "proper" telescope bought way back in 1989, and my current Vixen ED102SS which I've owned for over 16 years now but it dates from a few years prior to that. The SD103S is the descendant of the ED102SS I think. The design looks very similar (same objective cell, focuser etc) but the focal length has gone from F/6.5 to F/7.7 and the mating glass element has changed to something more environmentally friendly I believe. One of the standout things about the Vixen's I've owned and used has been the star test results which have always been excellent. Despite the simple design and lack of collimation adjustments the collimation of my two was spot on, showing text book airy disks and diffraction rings around the brighter stars. The machining of the focuser, cell and tube installation must be to a high standard.

Nice job 🙂 I'll look forward to seeing it in action when the Red Bull Soapbox challenge comes to Somerset 😁

Some good advice already provided. I'll just add that, of the ones that I've owned, the ones that had the most impact visually have been UHC and O-III filters (especially the latter on certain targets) branded Astronomik, DGM and Lumicon (an early one). The Tele Vue Bandmate Type 2 have also developed a very good reputation. Some lower cost filters that I've tried have much less impact. One exception to that is the Orion Ultrablock (a UHC type) but I'm told those can be variable.

Agreed. One of these gentlemen is not taking things seriously enough !:

In the 1.25 inch format I skip straight from 24mm (Panoptic) to 14mm (Delos) so 17mm (I had the 17.3 Delos for a while) gathered more dust than photons, sadly. Similarly with my 2 inch eyepieces, I find the step from 21mm (Ethos) to 13mm (Ethos) worked well for me so I ended up parting with the 17mm Ethos and later with the 17mm ES 92 as well. Nothing wrong with those ~17mm eyepieces of course, they were excellent. They just didn't fit into my observing approach or scope range. I don't tend to hang on to stuff that is not getting used.

I suppose that is a good reason to post reports on SGL when you do get a chance to use the kit. Then at least you can look back and realise how good it is when a chance does come along to use it. A few weeks back (last time there was any clear sky 🙄) I observed Jupiter with my Tak 100mm and, rather unusually, made a couple of sketches of what I could see. During the cloudy weather we have had since then I can at least look at those from time to time and remind myself what that long white tube shaped thing in the cupboard can actually do when it gets the chance 😁

I've had regrets about a few things that I've parted with over the years. In some cases enough to make me re-buy them. Usually (with just a couple of exceptions) though I realise why I parted with the original one and then end up selling on the 2nd one as well after a short time 🙄 I think I have even bought and sold a couple of items 3 times before finally realising that I could actually live without them after all ! Overall though, I probably have the best quality equipment now that I have ever had so I'm content to have let a few things get away to be more appreciated elsewhere.

Thats a lovely report Joe. I do hope to get down to southern skies again in the not too distant future. Your reports act as further motivation for such a trip 😁

I don't need a ~17mm eyepiece but I think that one has been snapped up now. Oddly, I've never found 17mm a focal length that I used much, despite owning some very good ones over the years

I'm not suggesting that you would ! 😁 (others might though)