Stu

Sorted

Yep, regardless of filtering, the better the skies, the better the view. You don't need to go to the top of a mountain to see the Veil. My group went to a dark site recently, only around an hour and a half from the M25 and we found mag 21.3 skies, plenty good enough to get good views, given decent transparency of course.

Clarifying what you say is important. Just saying things are invisible is not that helpful (or accurate). For instance I cannot see the Milky Way from my house, but can just about see the Eastern Veil using an OIII filter. Do you use a UHC or OIII filter at all. The importance of a dark sky does come through in all this, Olly has fabulous skies for instance, and the only times I have seen the North American Nebula have been from dark sites, generally with an OIII. The OP will have a lot more success with Deep Sky Objects they are able to get to a dark site.

This implies that you cannot see anything, which is not accurate.

Tee hee It's early name 'The little invisible notch nebula' has been lost to history

No issues with any of your comments John. I don't agree with comments that the NAN and Rosette etc are not visible, that was my main point. Apologies if I was confusing in my reply.

Not totally sure that's the case John. Your 12" is a better instrument for viewing M31 with I would think wider field of view and a little more aperture. A lot of this comes down to skies as we know. Last time I looked at M42 through my C925 under what was a dark but not very transparent sky at the Peak Star Party it was pretty awe inspiring. Under a good sky it is an amazing site I think. There is nothing wrong with setting expectations realistically, but visual astronomy has kept me quite content for over 17 years and I don't see it stopping.

Stellarium is very good for understanding scale and framing of objects in different scope/eyepiece combinations, but does not give a genuine representation of what is actually visible. A C11 has a very long focal length so you are likely to be viewing only the central area of M31 which makes it more difficult to pick out the detail which is pretty subtle. Dark skies make the biggest difference with M31

The point was that you can view them visually, and sketch them, so that is likely to be the most realistic representation for the OP to look at. Viewing images from sensitive cameras gives entirely the wrong impression, but the Veil, NAN and Rosette are all visible visually.

Not sure I understand what you are saying? These objects are visible visually so can be sketched?

Very nice and useful report Brandon, sounds like it was an excellent evening. One comment I would make is about the above quote. Our eyes are actually not very sensitive to light in the deep red where an H Alpha filter is targeted. An OIII or UHC filter is the best option for viewing this, I found that either of these was useful and showed different facets of the Nebula nicely. This is a link which is often posted but is a very useful guide to which nebulae respond to which filter. http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/ I hope you find it of use. Look forward to you next event report

I've heard of it seen in 8" under dark skies, but more frequently with 16" Plus. What sized scope are you thinking of?

I would expect the XW to win out of that lot. What do you think after trying them?

Agreed re dark skies and an OIII, althoughbif you can see the D.C. Naked eye your skis are so bad. I don't know that any eyepieces would give you a dramatic improvement although a 2" 20mm 100 degree would give you same sky with reduced exit pupil so probably better contrast.

Steve, I've obviously not done my sums before commenting. I assumed that the shorter focal length would allow for a wider field of view, but obviously, having considered it more, exit pupils get way too big if you go lower in mag so it's not useable anyway. So, shorter, more useable scope with no ladder requirement, but plenty of coma to cope with, as ever there is no such thing as a free lunch. Thanks for pointing it out Steve