RayD

Yes I fully understand what you're saying. Unfortunately in many cases, as with the corrector, retailers like FLO have the same information as us so only get to see the product when it arrives, just as we do. To be fair to @FLO, as soon as they were aware this was the same corrector they immediately updated their site and even offered a refund to those who bought one and already had one for their 80ED. You can't get better or fairer than that in my book. I suspect that they would do the same wherever this applies, or at least would confirm that the alternative was the same fit. Naturally I can't speak for other suppliers (I'm not speaking for FLO either, just my experience of them), but this is just another reason why I prefer to use FLO as my experience shows that they are totally honest and do the right thing. In industry it makes commercial sense to reuse parts where possible. Take a look at the motoring industry for a clear example of this, where underneath the badge of one car lies a completely different one (Jaguar and Ford Mondeo springs to mind).

I don't doubt that for one minute. Equally I have several M54 fittings here that I have tried and they don't fit, so anyone buying an adaptor who doesn't have newt ones to try, or doesn't want to play a game of hit and miss, is probably better getting the FLO ones, I would have thought.

There are actually a few custom adaptors that FLO has had specially made specifically for the 72ED due to the thread cut of the draw tube. You can find the compression one here and there is also a M42 (T) and M48 one, which are all very good and work well with this OTA.

I'm certain that FLO get as frustrated as we do when things don't fit together, especially when they are from the same manufacturer. I think the pressure was on SW to release a FR for this 'scope, so they felt utilising the 80ED one would be the best solution. However, as you rightly say, some accurate spacing details would have been useful for sure. I notice now that TS has relegated the SW corrector to options rather than recommended. I wonder if this was a conscious decision? It will get ironed out, I'm sure, and a small run of clear skies will enable me to get a definitive spacing requirement. I'm sure there is someone out there who can calculate it, but I didn't even get an E in A level maths, so that's beyond me.

I have a feeling they were in the dark with this as much as we were, and were also expecting a dedicated corrector. I'm sure they are trying to find out as much as possible, and also keeping an eye on our testing as it is all a bit of an unknown at the minute.

Thanks @moise212 very useful information. I think the spacing for the SW corrector is going to be different anyway as it is optimised for the 80ED meaning the 55mm is @ 600mm FL (f7.5). With the 72 being 420mm FL (f5.8) I would have thought this will need some fettling, with the shorter FL needing more spacing (I think I'm right here but could equally be wrong and it needs less as my tiny brain finds it all very confusing). The difference in spacing could be a fair bit. As such I doubt very much that the standard 11mm T-ring is going to work perfectly with this corrector on the 72ED without additional spacing. I am still waiting for some clear skies here to carry out any meaningful testing, but for me at the moment it seems the OVL FF works a little better, but it isn't a reducer. However, at f5.8 I personally don't think the reducer element is essential as it is pretty quick anyway. These are all just my thoughts and opinions of course, and I could be way off the mark and am happy to be corrected, but I am still actively trying to test and provide updated reviews.

Yes I can see your problem if you are using 1 1/4" low power eyepieces. All mine above 11mm are 2", but even at 11mm I only have around 4.6mm inward travel left with the adaptor in the diagonal. I would say that SW probably intend for this to be use with 2" eyepieces, especially at low powers, and is why it is only supplied with a 2" thumbscrew adaptor on the draw tube (this is only an assumption). It is all very close as you can see @Stu. I believe there are some low profile diagonals out there, so perhaps placing the reducer in the draw tube adaptor and then a low profile 1 1/4" adaptor in that may do the trick? I certainly welcome your thoughts.

Definitely I would say. I struggle with balance also with my FSQ106, and just use external weights and longer dovetails in various manners to get there.

By way of example. If you imagine you have everything working and focusing with no extensions between your draw tube and your FR. You have the correct (70mm) spacers between your FR and your camera sensor. Now imagine at this point your draw tube is sticking out 50mm. Add a 25mm spacer to the end of the draw tube, and the camera sensor will be 25mm out from where it needs to be to achieve focus, so you will need to wind the draw tube in 25mm to bring the sensor back to the focal point. In your case if you have an extension between the draw tube and the FR, that distance is how far your draw tube needs to go in, and if this is more than what would be sticking out with no extension, then it won't be possible to achieve focus.

Yes if you then can't rack the draw tube in far enough to get the sensor to the focal point.

Yes. The only reason you would normally add an extension tube is if you need to extend the tube to reach the focal point, such as using a guide camera on Celestron Startravel OTA. In your case, whatever the length of the extender between the end of the draw tube and the FR, is the amount the draw tube needs to go in, so actually doesn't achieve anything as this would put the camera sensor in the same place anyway.

I don't think this changes it. The focal length is the point from the lens cell that the light converges and effectively comes to focus (in simplified terms) so this doesn't change with an extension as it will still be 360mm (or maybe 330mm in your case) until you add the FR then this then changes to 260mm. As always I could be wrong and this is only my understanding in my tiny brain.

No problem, I didn't know there were older and newer versions with different focal lengths, just trying to help. I've found that with focal reducers intended for varying focal length scopes there is often some fettling to do.

I just looked on the TS site and it does refer to this being dependant on the focal length of the telescope, and then gives the relative figures, so I think it is the native FL of the telescope (360mm in your case) which determines the spacing.

I could be wrong (I often am) but I've always calculated it using the native FL of the OTA it is being fitted to. This is what I did on my TS80 with the TS2.5 and it worked perfectly. Certainly worth a go if you have some short spacers in there that you can remove.

I think the FR from TS is 70mm up to 350mm FL, so at 360mm (65mm up to 420mm) you're a tad over so you could try removing 5mm of spacing and having another go.

Fingers crossed. Happens to us all I'm sure, Mark. I hadn't even mounted my Mesu200 and it fell over (fortunately on a carpeted floor) and damaged a servo. I had to drive it to Mesu in Holland and Lucas replaced the motor for me. Expensive mistake that one!

Ok no problem, thanks, Mark. Sorry to hear about the Horizon, hopefully nothing too serious.

Hi Mark. I notice you mention you tried this with a nosepiece. Did this achieve focus ok?

Thanks for confirming, Steve. Just one thing I'm worried about is the inward focus distance if using this with the nosepiece and thumbscrew fitting. At the moment I achieve focus with 14mm between the metal back and the FR mating surface. If the nosepiece collar is 3mm, say, and the connector is 12mm (this is the measured length) then I'm not sure this is going to work. Below pic is mine last night in focus. I'm happy to test this if it helps as I think it is going to be really close. On the other hand I could have my sums wrong and be talking total rubbish, which wouldn't be the first time!

It's a great app and really appreciated as a gift. Of course you will never beat V1.0 eyeballs and V2.1 upturned palm by way of forecasting suitability for astronomy, but Clear Outside comes a close second

Exactly that, Kev. It is simply another layer to prevent water etc. working its way in where it isn't wanted and, when considered against the overall cost, it's almost a no-brainer.

A breathable membrane is only necessary if you are insulating the inside. It allows the moisture which will build up between the insulation and the membrane to escape, preventing damp and mould, but also provides a water tight external face to prevent the insulation getting wet. If you have nothing going on the inside as far as insulation goes, then it is not necessary to install a membrane at all, but it does provide a water barrier if your cladding starts to move.

What a simple but effective design. That's great. I love the fact that the footrest moves also. This is the first time I've looked at one of these and I'm really impressed.

I like that, Derek. Does the seat move up and down? It looks like it goes to whatever height you want and then wedges in that position? Looks very nice indeed.