John

I recall observing through a 20 inch David Lukehurst made dob a few years ago at the SGL star party. M13 and M51 were the objects I chose to view. I won't forget those views in a hurry. Absolutely jaw dropping 

You don't see many reports on the ES 25mm / 100. Good to know that there are some out there

The movement on my mount is a result of Shanes craftsmanship - simple teflon pads, in the right places, and the scope not only moves smoothly but equally importantly it stays where you point it. The dobsonian mount is such a good design when well executed

Your "wish list" seems very similar to mine Piero

Although it has a solid tube, my Orion Optics based 12 inch F/5.3 does it for me. I've read good things about the Astrosystems and Teeter ones but I've not had the pleasure of actually seeing or using one.

Ultimately the UK seeing conditions can mean that a great 12 inch mirror can't always fully deliver it's potential so smaller aperture scopes like refractors can get surprisingly close to the planetary performance at times. On the deep sky though, no contest.

I'll look forward to following your progress towards dob ownership

Just as an additional note, I also have the 30mm Aero ED, bought for outreach, and thats decent but not as well corrected as the 40mm.

I have the Nagler 31 and the Ethos 21 and love them both. The N31 shows a bit more sky of course. Recently I acquired an Aero ED 40mm (actually a clone of it) which provides a 68 degree AFoV and has surprised me by being really sharp and pretty flat across it's field even with my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian. The 40mm / 68 shows a wee bit more sky than the Nagler 31 and is much lighter - nearly half the weight. The optics in the Aero ED's (and clones) are reputed to be the same used in the now out of production TMB Paragons.

At F/8 I would think these 40mm / 68's are worthy of consideration as alternatives to the 41mm Panoptic. The field stop is sharply defined as well !

There is still the Wall 30 inch refractor (pictured below) at the Hanwell Observatory I think. They have a 30 inch reflector there as well, for public outreach:

The longer stalk on the 30mm affects it's positioning as well - it stands a little higher off the scope tube.

21 hours ago, Alfian said:

I don't know the size of the 30mm raci, its obviously smaller in diameter but its the length that will make the difference. No doubt an email to the helpful team at FLO would help here. The 9x50 is quite a big finder and it did look a little incongrous on the 127 Mak but the 50mm does make for a bright clear image, better than a 30mm

 

I use 6x30 RACI finders on my 100mm and 120mm refractors and a 9x50 RACI on my 12 inch dobsonian.

Here is a quick pic of both sizes which might help:

Once the pinion shaft is bent, even slightly, neither a crayford or a rack and pinion will work nicely.

I think these chinese crayford focusers are very sensitive things. When they leave the factory they are well adjusted and work nicely. If you dare to adjust them yourself though, or if they get a bash, they are never quite the same again. Don't know why it is but thats what I've found

There are a number of terms used in some older books that deserve to be questioned, for example  "useful planetary work".

Perhaps today you need a launch vehicle, a robotic spacecraft, a team of engineers and scientists and a few million $'s to do useful planetary work ?   

Thanks Jeremy - I'm flattered

Having been in this hobby for quite a while (30+ years) I've read a lot of books on the subject over that time. Looking back at some of the titles that got me started such as the Observers Book of Astronomy, The Amateur Astronomer and The Amateur Astronomers Handbook I see that there are recommendations in there regarding the minimum aperture telescopes that are considered "useful" (whatever that means) for astronomy. Commonly for refractors, 80mm / 3 inches is often quoted and for reflectors (newtonians usually) 150mm / 6 inches seems to be where the "serious" observing starts. In my early days in the hobby I found this a little frustrating because all I could afford was a 2.4 inch refractor of the type sold in department stores and in "Mums catalogue"

Much as I enjoyed these wonderful books I can't help feeling that this particular advice is no longer really relevant today. Maybe there is less emphasis now on amateurs pursuing rigourious observing programmes and more on just getting out under the stars and enjoying yourself but it seems to me that many of us are regularly using quite small aperture scopes and having a rewarding time with them.

So if I was writing a book of the type that I mention above (I'm not you will be relieved to know !) I think I would take a much less prescriptive approach to what constitutes a minimum useful aperture to enjoy astronomy with. There are decent telescopes now with apertures from 50mm / 2 inches which have their place in providing enjoyment.  Of course it's also useful to have an idea of what the limitations of small apertures are, to avoid disappointment / frustration so I think I'd try and outline what those are as well as indicating what they are capable of.

Does the old advice on minimum apertures still have some merit though ?

I'm very interested to hear what others think

1 minute ago, parallaxerr said:

Expensive boxes them......

Yes, but how much ?

If scopes that cost £600 - £1K are getting damaged in transit with all the upset and hassle that means for vendors and buyers, I reckon an additional few quid on the price is worth paying from both perspectives. Seems a false economy to me to use inadequate packaging.

I know Taks cost a lot but they do know how to package a scope:

I really can't understand why they just can't send you another scope and arrange to have the faulty one collected and returned at their cost

Thats what a decent dealer would have done as soon as they ascertained what the problem was.

All the inconvenience and delay seems to have fallen on you but it was entirely TS's fault. They packed the scope and they arranged delivery. They really should have "owned" this problem from the start and sorted it at minimal inconvenience to yourself together with an apology.

I believe that TS are possibly the largest European astro dealer so they should have the resources to respond promptly

Especially when customer satisfaction is at stake !

Yes, the longer the focal length of the eyepiece (25mm in this case) the lower the magnification you will get. Mars is a lot brighter than Uranus.

I might have a go at this distant object tonight. My 12 inch dob is out and cooling. My faintest point source with that scope is mag 14.7 from my back graden so far so PG 1634+706 is just about attainable, I hope.

Thanks also for the Skysafari list of other quasars Neil

A bit like mine except a little longer Alan

Very nice setup !

I think the ED103S followed the ED102SS and ED102S in chronology terms.

I did have a very nice Moonlight CF2 on the scope but a chance to get an original Vixen focuser, from one of the last ED102SS's came along at around the same time that the very old Moonlite CF2 on my ED120 developed some real issues so the ED120 now has a much newer CF2 and the Vixen a very smooth original focuser. The swap around has shaved quite a bit off the overall weight of the Vixen as well. Moonlites are lovely but weigh quite a bit by the time the hefty flange is taken into account. The Vixen is back to it's original weight of 3.3kg. I've owned the Vixen for 12 years now - the longest of any of my scopes

I've not found that a filter (of any type) helps because it dims the stars. I have heard that a green or red filter can help with Sirius but I have not found that myself.

An improptu session with my Vixen ED102SS tonight on the Skytee II mount and Berlebach Uni 28 tripod. I've got an original Vixen R&P focuser back on the scope again which is nice to use. Here I was rather fruitlessly trying to pick out the Leo Triplet out of a rather murky sky. Back to double star splitting I think !

E & F are a little different from most multible star splits because, as well as being quite faint and quite close to brighter stars, they are seen against a nebulous field. I feel that this adds to the challenge of seeing them. I've found that getting the magnification "just right" is important as well. I would have thought 150x - 200x with your 127mm mak would have done the job but your seeing may well have been against so pushing them just beyond reach.

Can you see Rigel's companion and the mag 8.8 4th member of Sigma Orionis ? - if so then E & F might be visible using the above magnification range.