johninderby

The GSO CC is actually a “fast” design. CCs were much more commonly f15 to f20 or slower.

Some interesting info on the CC vs RC.

http://www.dreamscopes.com/pages/projects-04/ccvrc-04.htm

Having another look at the manufactures specs for this scope they are claimng “better than 96%” reflectivity. 🤔

Not going to be too bothered by the precise figure though. It simply works brilliantly and wouldn’t hesitate recoomending this scope. I love it 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

There was a discussion on CN on the subject of reflectivity and both GSO  and Orion  are claiming 96% so I’ve gone with the safe option of just claiming 96%.  Whichever is correct it is still a great performer.

Would like to see a proper review of the 6” to see how it compares to the 8”.

They both have 96% reflectivity. There is a mistake on the TS website. 

The CC has better contrast and will take a lot more magification than either the SCT or MAK. My 8” CC gives better views than my 10” dob for lunar. Also the build quality is better than the SCT or MAK. Had someone take a look at the CC and he was impressed by the build quality and he owns a Tak Mewlon.

Yes it certainly can perforn on DSOs but it’s on lunar / plaetary where it is something special.

I’ve not seen much on the 6” version but it is a lot cheaper than the 8” so is it as good? Having had the 8” SCT as well as the CC for me it’s a no contest for lunar / planeary observing. However that is the thing to keep in mind. It is a specualist lunar / plantary scope. 

I think you’ve run into the typical CN “experts” who have never actually seen one and don’t know what they are talking about. The ones that have actually used one seem very positive.

While they use the same tube as the RC version inside they are a lot different with a much smaller obstruction and different mirrors. Think many are confusing the specs for the RC version with it’s big central obstruction and the CC. The early RC scopes had focuser problems but now sorted out.

You can buy a focuser tilt unit if you want but not needed for visual. The stock focuser is not bad at all but replaced mine with a Baader Steeltrack refractor focuser.. I have owned two C8s and they would be totaly outclassed on lunar / planetary compared to the classical cassegrain. which has better contrast and will take a lot higher magnification. The C8 has advantages for DS0’s when used with a focal reducer though.

One of the best features of the CC though is it’s not affected by dew unlike of course SCTs or Maks.and the shorter cool down time.   🙂

This is one of my all time favourite scopes. Impresses me every time out and such a pleasure to use. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

I’ve used one of these. Perfect for the job although the dovetail only comes with the shoe but cheap enough.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SVBONY-Bracket-Base-42mm-Dovetail-Mounting-Optical-Astro-Telescope-Finderscope/173912252371?hash=item287dfa5fd3:g:FcAAAOSwwhxcIeC4

I used one for a low profile finder bracket setup with a pair of rings.

I used to be impressed with the Skymax 180s ability to take high magnification but it is so comprehensively out performed by the 8” classical cassgrain. The cassegrain delivers great performance at 550 mag on the moon with a Morpheus eyepiece  providing seeing is reasonable. Trying to push that mag with the mak was a waste of time as it was empty mag that didn’t show more detail.

I find at 550 mag the surface of the moon looks grainy. Yes it’s a bit more aperture but that doesn’t explain the difference. Looking forward to using it with the AZ100. Hopefully the forecast for Friday night is correct. 🙏🏼

The small Skymax maks use a large rubber O ring to seal the back casing which often breaks when you take it apart.

It does sound like something is amiss with it. With a new scope just return it. Did you buy it from FLO or somewhere else? A small amount of backlash is inevitable but should be only minimal.

There is a solution to the problem with backlash of small maks but a 1.25” crayford with adapter would cost more than the mak. 

The biggest criticism I’ve heard of the AVX is they are a bit variable in quality. Get a good one and it’s fine but too many reports of people having trouble with theirs. 

Think an HEQ5 with the belt mod is a safer bet.

I found feel was a tiny bit more positive with the knobs directly mounted. Not very much but just enough to tell the difference. But as I’ve mentioned a short scope is fine this way as reach is not a problem. 

http://www.rowanastronomy.com/productsa1.htm#neq5beltkit

Also available pre-installed from FLO.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/sky-watcher-heq5-pro-with-rowan-belt-mod-upgrade.html

I just wanted to try it more than anything. The slow-motion cables are perfect with a longer scope but with a scope like the cassegrain find it easier to place my hand on the knobs. When I get some proper use of it will see if I prefer it that way.

In the it’s pretty hard to improve this mount category corrected one little thing that had bugged me. 🤔

Replaced the mounting bolts on the counterweight mounting flange with low profile headed ones. The words “nit” and “picking” come to mind. 😂

Yes 👍🏻 or no 👎🏽

I have added the mounting holes to the Skytee and it is simple. Just need a tap to thread the holes you drill.

I recently sold my TS-AZ5 which allready has the mounting holes drilled. I tapped the cente hole in the saddle clamp I used the M12 and used an M16 to M12 thread adapter so I didn’t need to remove the saddle to fit the counterweight bar. You could also just drill a 20mm in the saddle but the saddle I used had a 10.5mm centre hole so easy to tap out to M12.

One thing I like with the Bresser is the use of tube rings as well which allow for balancing of the tube and also rotating the tube to get the eyepiece at just the right angle. 

Bresser has used an embossed metal rather than formica but seems to give the same result.

I too have read differing opinions on the friction bearings, Mostly positive but not everyone seems happy with them.

I prefer the bearings used on my Bresser dob. Traditional style bearings used mainly on bigger dobs but work well on my 10”

Looks very much like the friction bearing used on GSO deluxe dobs.

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p1192_GSO-10-inch-f-5-Dobsonian-Telescope-Deluxe-Version.html

Considering this is an old design dating back to 1935 surprising that there are so few of them around. 

Have read a lot of threads on CN on the design but not many have actually gone on built one. Think the complexity puts them off. 

Will be interested to see how you get on with the project.

The HEQ5 is a much heavier duty mount than any of the others and you can allways do the Rowan drive belt mod to upgrade it later on if you wish.

Or 😁😁😁