John

Hi John,

The tripod came with the spreader fitted. It's the same spreader that Skywatcher use on their aluminium tripods (ie: plastic) but despite my initial reservations it does a decent job. I have a tray to fit it but I rarely use that.

I don't do much solar observing but I have to admit that the Sun looked good this afternoon with 2 complex sunspot areas visible on the disk. 150x gave very sharp, detailed and well defined views with the Tak FC-100DL and the Lunt Herschel Wedge

A nice, relaxed, warm couple of hours after mowing the lawns

Very nice setup Dave -

Thats more positive Mike

Pity the supplier was not better informed though.

At least you managed to capture the squealing for posterity. BBC might need it if they have a new production of Animal Farm !

Very interesting update Gavin

Your description of the difference between the Tak FC 100 and the AP 130 sounds very similar to the experience I had comparing my Tak DL to my TMB / LZOS 130. Very similar superlative views just more of it with the 130 .  Both F/9 scopes in this case.

How much does the AP 130 OTA weigh by the way ?

I imagine that the TEC 140 will move on quickly when you part with it - lots of demand for those as well !

Nice report Mark - the skies are not bad here tonight but could be a little better - I hope you get it another time

I've been able to see a couple of mag 14.7 stars around M57 tonight with my 12" but thats more or less overhead so little atmospheric extinction. Didn't get the central star though. Must be close - probably needs a really, really good night with my scope.

Bloomin clouds coming over from the W now

On 13/08/2017 at 12:51, Joe G said:

Hi

Ive ben very intereted in this topic. The video shows the mount IMO to be quite capable & highlights the previous points about the slow motion knob positions. I'm wondering if knobs work better for a reflector than a refractor. I'd appreciate John's opinion as he has had a chance to try the reflector out. Thanks in advance

I'm afraid that I just moved the mount around for a few minutes at an astro show. Not really a proper test in the way that Mike and Paul have. From my brief encounter (very brief) I'd say that the mount head looks suitable for a 130mm F/5 newtonian but the stock tripod is a bit too lightweight. On another tripod the mount would fare quite well with such a scope I think.

6 hours ago, mdstuart said:

Actually might have a go tonight. Andromeda is rising in the NE and the moon rises after nautical darkness. Lets see how close I can get.

Mark

How did it go Mark ?

The moons up and bright now but it was pretty dark earlier. I had my 4" frac out though so mag 14.5 was not on the cards !

22 hours ago, John said:

I'm going to an astro fair tomorrow so if any of the dealers there have an AZ-5 I'll have a play.

Well I had a play with an AZ-5 today. It had a 130mm F/5 newtonian on it. I asked the vendor if the silver knobs acted as clutches and he confirmed thats what they do. I then tried the altitude and azumuth motions with the clutch knobs at varying degrees of tightness. I could not get a squeak or any other noise out of the mount. The slow motion controls continued to work smoothly at the various degrees of cluch tightness and the motion of the scope remained smooth too. I was quite impressed with the action of the mount and it's fit and finish.

The stock tripod we all agreed was "adequate" and no more than that.

I wonder if your example has a fault of some sort Mike ?

48 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Hi Dave.

The instructions clearly state that the locking screw should be used as a clutch, allowing both free push pull movement and manual driving to be used simultaneously, without the need to unlock the axes.

I've tried to attach a short video of the mount in motion, so i hope it works. What I'm hoping is that there will be a simple cure for the problem as I really like the mount.

20170811_120806.mp4

Thats an interesting illustration of the issue. It seems to me that the tension knobs would need some form of pad or insert between the end of the screw and whatever it bears against in order for them to act as a clutch. The ones on my Skytee II have brass inserts for this purpose. The Ercole mount that I used to own used a small teflon disk.

I wonder if this is missing from the azimuth axis on your AZ-5 ?

I'm going to an astro fair tomorrow so if any of the dealers there have an AZ-5 I'll have a play.

11 hours ago, mdstuart said:

John

I am going to need a non moon night for this one.

Mark

So am I Mark - even more so !

Are you having a go at this one tonight Mark ?

A the moment I have a refractor out on double stars but I might put the 12" dob out as Andromeda rises higher. The Moon is also on the way up though, which is not ideal ....

Thats very interesting - thanks for posting the information

Currently the most distant object I've managed to observe was the recent blazar CTA 102 which I believe was around 8 billion LY's.  This would top that, if I can see it that is !

It would be close to the limit of my 12" dobsonian from home but being high in the sky will help.

39 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hi John,

I think Mike's point about the tripods is important.

Last year I had my Vixen ED103s apo on a Porta II mount and was very pleased with it. As you know, my ED103s was a bit longer than your Vixen ED, so would have put a bit more strain on the mount. Here is a picture of it from the "Show us your frac" thread: 

It's important to note that in this set up, the Vixen was "fully loaded", ie it carried an Altair 10x60mm finder with reticle and 1.25" eyepiece, a 2" diagonal and a large ES eyepiece, so adding significantly to the weight. Also, the mount I had also had the lighter ali tripod, and I do think that it struggled at high powers, although it was ok at lower powers. 

I think that, on the tubular steel tripod from an EQ5, or better still, the 2" CG5 type tripod, it would have been much more stable at higher powers. In fact, the main reason I let the Porta go (and I now wish I hadn't!) was the tripod: that, and the fact that at the time this was my main scope, and I had an excellent Vixen GP on solid wood tripod which was so much better for high power. If a scope can take high powers well, as this one (and yours) could, it's a shame not to be able to exploit that capability, even as a grab and go set up.

I really like the AZ5 head, it looks great. And I loved the slo motions on the Porta, much preferred it to the AZ4 I had previously as the "nudging only" thing I found very clunky, with the stiction that Mike referred to earlier. Maybe I could have fettled that out, but I didn't try that.

Now that I have another ED103s I really do want to get another Altaz mount before long. I'd definitely consider the Porta II head, but only if I could get a suitable tubular tripod to put it on: at least you can  do that with the Porta, whereas with the AZ5 I understand that you need to buy the Berlebach type adapter to be able to fit the AZ5 head to such a tripod, increasing the cost by another £50 or so.

I do think that both the Porta II and AZ5 tripods look great for this type of scope. I guess I intuitively just "trust" Vixen quality more than SW, but that's just me!

Dave

Very interesting Dave

I've always liked Vixen stuff and enjoyed my Porta I when I had it.

The Vixen ED102S looks be pretty similar in terms of weight and lenght to my Tak FC-100DL. I'm now wondering if the Porta II head on my Oberwerk hardwood tripod would be a good setup for that scope

Yes, I'd love a T-Rex if one ever becomes availble - it would suit my 130 F/9 tripet extremely well

Very interesting stuff on the AZ-5 though and very helpful in establishing where it sits in the order of things. The design is elegant and the slow motion controls a nice touch. The price is pretty reasonable too. If I had an F/7.4 Tak FC 100 then I'd almost certainly go for one

Just now, JG777 said:

Hi John

It is the UNI18, I added the central spreader which is a huge improvement over the chains. Not sure how different this would be to the 28?

Thanks John,

I have a UNI 28 - the difference is just the height when full extended I think, which I need for my refractors. I must get round to getting that spreader - it looks very neat and effective.

I missed your original posting of this setup John - it really does look cracking in every respect

Which Berlebach UNI tripod is that, the 18 or the 28 ?

3 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Both my Porta mounts were on aluminium tripods, so may be they would have performed better on steel tripods? 

Mine was on the Vixen aluminum tripod too. You had no choice with the Porta I as I recall. The Porta II could be moved to another tripod but other than that I think it's probably the same mount as the Porta I.

Anyway, this thead is on the AZ5 so I don't want to derail it. Thanks for your thoughts so far on the AZ5

Thanks Mike. I'll put that idea to one side then !

I had a Porta I which worked well with my Vixen ED102SS so I wondered if the Porta II was a step up, which I think the FC-100DL needs because of it's length.

Thanks for that additional feedback Mike

Have you ever used a Vixen Porta II by the way ? - I wonder how the AZ5 (as a mount head) would compare with that ?

It will be interesting to see if the HD version gets to the UK market.

I guess there were 2 tripod options offered with the AZ-4 so there is no reason why they won't ultimately follow the same approach with the AZ-5.

5 hours ago, Dave1 said:

Not so sure about that, Moonshane. From what I've read in this thread, its more the standard aluminium tripod that is the limiting factor on mount capacity. When the heavy duty version comes out, then it will have a capacity of 9kg. 

Is there going to be a HD version then

One thing that I've noticed in comparing the competion is that the AZ5 has 96 teeth gear wheels wheras the Vixen Porta II (for example) has 120. I wonder how that will affect the actual use of the mount ?

1 hour ago, Dave1 said:

Yes F15,

That is the logic I'm kind of leaning to, get the 2" stainless steel legged version with the EQ5 16" mount extension tube! Should then hopefully be ok with a refractor which will be 1330mm long!

I was hoping not to go that route because of the added extra cost, as I already own an EQ5 1.75" stainless steel tripod. Need to do all the mods on my Towa 339 first, and then weight it.

The only slight snag might be that the EQ5 / HEQ5 tripods generally use M10 bolts wheras the Skywatcher AZ5, and presumably it's extension, is 3/8th's of an inch

A 1330mm long refractor is going to put a lot of strain on the mount head / tripod top regardless of the scopes weight. I'll be interested to see how the AZ5 handles Pauls F/9 Tak.

5 hours ago, Dave1 said:

So what do we all think the AZ5 heavy duty tripod is? Is it just an EQ5 tripod renamed? The EQ5 1.75" steel legged tripod

I ask as I am doing some modifications to my Towa 339 which will add weight, going to flock and baffle it, extend the OTA by 130mm, add a Skywatcher Crayford, which will be used with a Baader Zeiss 2" diagonal, and Baader Hyperion MK3 zoom eye piece. I want to pair my Towa 339 with a new mount. The AZ5 with the heavy duty tripod might just be the ticket with a pier extension!

 

I think there is some confusion over what is, and is not, an AZ5 mount.

365 Astronony list a mount which they call the AZ5 and they also list a matching tripod which is a 1.5 inch steel tubed tripod:

http://www.365astronomy.com/365Astronomy-AZ5-Versatile-Vari-angle-Micro-Motion-Alt-Azimuth-Telescope-Mount-with-Stainless-Steel-Tripod.html

http://www.365astronomy.com/365astronomy-az5-tripod-only-compatible-with-eq3-eq5-and-skytee-mounts.html

This, as far as I can see, is not the same mount as the Skywatcher AZ5 but it does have some similarities.

As far as I know, as standard, the Skywatcher AZ5 mount, if bought with a tripod, comes with an aluminium tripod: