Jump to content

Decision made but have 1 more question


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

After plugging my way through tons of reading material, bugging the SGL experts and changing my mind a hundred times I have finally settled on getting a Skywatcher Skymax 127 Supatrak. I just worked out what is going to suit me best :). As a further question, I will need a portable power supply and I see Maplins have a 3-in-1 Portable Jumpstarter for 24.99. Is this suitable?

Cheers Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Don't think that you'll be disappointed with the 127 - I certainly haven't been.

And yes, the 3 in 1 will work fine - but do remember to charge it at least once per month, even if you haven't used it.

Clear skies & enjoy your new scope:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the supatrak mount is not the most ideal mount and you would be much better off with either a AZ4 or EQ3. Just my opinion and others may disagree.

Yup, I disagree :)

I have the AZ4 and an HEQ5 mount, but I would - and indeed *do* - take the Supatrak mount in preference to those two - if I'm using a light enough scope (such as my Skywatcher Skymax 102).

I like the Supatrak because:

  • It auto-tracks :)
  • It's probably the most lightweight mount that's still sturdy enough for serious astronomical use.
  • Its all-electric operation means that small, microscopic movements are possible without touching the mount, making it ideal for planetary use. The AZ4 on the other hand is completely unsuitable for planetary observation (heaven only knows how many times I've tried...)
  • The Supatrak lasts for ages on a set of AA batteries, so no powertank required.
  • Very quick and easy to set-up and break-down

The only downside is that you can't de-clutch the scope and sweep it by hand across the skies. It's true that this can make navigation slow and tricky - however, I'd rather have that, than a mount that wobbles or vibrates - and you learn how to handle its "etch-a-sketch"-style star navigation after a while, with a bit of experience.

You also need a camping-style windbreak if you're in a windy location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a further question, I will need a portable power supply and I see Maplins have a 3-in-1 Portable Jumpstarter for 24.99. Is this suitable?

Yes (I have one) but you don't need it.

I have that Jumpstarter to use with my HEQ5 mount. However, the Supatrak (non-goto version) mount uses so remarkably little power, that AA batteries are fine.

I have never (not even once to my knowledge) had to use our Supatrak on anything other than normal alkaline AA batteries - keeping a spare set in the bag just in case. These last several nights, so if you do need to change to a new set, you know they'll last the rest of the night no question.

Powertanks / Jumpstarters are yet one-more-thing to cart around and worry about. Since the Supatrak lasts several nights on a set of AA batteries then you're better off without a Powertank.

You can always buy one at a later date if you find you're getting through too many AAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just ordered the same scope/mount so this is all extremely useful to me as well!

Can I ask, when you say you cannot 'de-clutch' the mount, does that mean that you can't manually slew it at all, or just that the speed at which you can manually slew it is restricted by the gearing. If the latter, does this have any negative affect on the motors/gears?

I was told in the shop that it could be operated manually as well as electronically, was I misled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, when you say you cannot 'de-clutch' the mount, does that mean that you can't manually slew it at all, or just that the speed at which you can manually slew it is restricted by the gearing.

It's not a big deal, but with the Supatrak, there's no way to grab the telescope with your hand, and manually push it to where you want. You always have to move the telescope with the Up/Down/Left/Right buttons on the handset.

It will probably take you the best part of one minute to move the telescope to point in the opposite direction - which can feel quite a long time whilst you're waiting. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that hopping between the stars would feel a lot easier if you could use your own hands (rather than the motors) to swing the telescope anywhere that you please to begin with - and that's not possible with the SupaTrak. This is not a "showstopper" problem - well, at least not for me - and as I said it does have the extremely important benefit that - even though it's a relatively lightweight mount - it doesn't wobble at all as you slew the telescope. It can just feel a bit restrictive if you're used to the feature on some other mounts of being able to flick a level on each axis, swing the scope into place, tighten the levers and then use buttons for the final fine-positioning. That's a common way of using Equatorial mounts (provided Goto is not expected to be used)

However, it is important to keep things in perspective, and remember that on nearly all types of mounts that have been star-aligned (other than, for example, the SW Flextube Goto scopes) you can't de-clutch and manually swing those into position either or they will lose their alignment - so this isn't a problem exclusive to the Supatrak by any means. You just need to get used to moving a telescope by push-button, that's all.

With the Supatrak, the payback is a mount that's lightweight but wobble-free when slewing, takes virtually no time at all to set up, and can operate for many hours on a single set of AA batteries.

I was told in the shop that it could be operated manually as well as electronically, was I misled?

They might not have understood what you meant, since using Up/Down/Left/Right buttons to position the scope is sometimes called "Manual Slewing" - whereas in this discussion, when we say "manual", we mean it in a much more literal way :)

I was using the Supatrak for some time last night - and I have to say its still my favourite mount for lighter telescopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always feel that you might as well invest in the GoTo version, if you can afford the price difference. I think there's a LOT to be said for both these mounts though. Whether needed or not, setup consists of basic leveling. In a non-permanent context, far easier than an Equatorial? Moreover, accuracy can be trivially improved by attention to tripod rigidity - An area of hard-standing will allow surprising precision etc. A bit of attention to "fore-aft" balancing does help re. motor strain (and longevity?) though! But there's much to LIKE in the intuitive nature of Alt-Azimuth [iMO], whether manual or button pushing. And still a gap in the market for mounts with greater load capacity (Ioptron notwithstanding). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- take the Supatrak mount in preference to those two - if I'm using a light enough scope (such as my Skywatcher Skymax 102).

You also need a camping-style windbreak if you're in a windy location.

The OP intends to use a Skymax 127 @ 3.4KG's. The Skymax 102 is light in comparison @ 1.93KG's.

I have read a lot of members complaining about the comparatively light weight mount causing focus wobble due to the lack of sturdiness even with the SS tripod version. I have the Celestron alternative and suffer similar problems. The eq3 is more than capable of holding the weight of the 127 Skymax and is often supplied with the PRO models. Although I cannot comment personally on the AZ4 Sky watcher's website claim to be able to use up to 6" 1200mm reflectors on them.

I can only advise on the experience I have had using my Skymax 127 and other peoples experiences my vary depending on what they demand from their equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys - I'm going to stick to my guns and go for the MAK 127 Supatrak - excellent advice on the batteries. I would otherwise have wasted 25 pounds. Nice discussion as well- that's why I love SGL :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would put my two pence worth in. I bought the Celestron Nexstar 127 a few months ago and on my first night out with it it went through a fresh set of batteries after half an hour, so I bought one of the Maplin powertanks and connector lead from FLO and it has been great ever since. Like one of the other posters said you have to maintain the powertank by keeping it topped up from your wall socket at least once a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP intends to use a Skymax 127 @ 3.4KG's. The Skymax 102 is light in comparison @ 1.93KG's.

I have read a lot of members complaining about the comparatively light weight mount causing focus wobble due to the lack of sturdiness even with the SS tripod version. I have the Celestron alternative and suffer similar problems. The eq3 is more than capable of holding the weight of the 127 Skymax and is often supplied with the PRO models. Although I cannot comment personally on the AZ4 Sky watcher's website claim to be able to use up to 6" 1200mm reflectors on them.

I can only advise on the experience I have had using my Skymax 127 and other peoples experiences my vary depending on what they demand from their equipment.

just stick a 5 kilo bag of sand on the tray that holds the tripod legs , simple job done steady as a rock . and i would still opt for the goto ..:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just stick a 5 kilo bag of sand on the tray that holds the tripod legs , simple job done steady as a rock . and i would still opt for the goto ..:)

Thanks Hemihaggis I will give it a go next clear night. Sounds stupid but any recommendation what bag to put the sand in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't speak for the earlier aluminium legged tripod, but I have to say that the current S/S version is very stable, provided that you set it up properly, and above all, don't touch whilst in use.

Thick rubber pads under each leg also help, as does the suggested sandbag, if necessary. And, like all tripods, the less extension you use, the more stable it is.

OK, it certainly isn't an HEQ5/EQ6, but there again, there's a big difference in price.

But, having said all that, I too would recommend the GOTO. I've used the supertrak version, and whilst it's fine, I would say that if you are going to navigate by starhopping, then you might indeed want to consider an EQ3 or 5 mount instead, which are likely to be faster in use. Or even the seemingly very highly regarded AZ-4, if you don't see a need for an GEM mount.

On whatever mount, though, it's still a fine scope, and OUTSTANDING value for money :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read a lot of members complaining about the comparatively light weight mount causing focus wobble due to the lack of sturdiness even with the SS tripod version.

Focus wobble? Yes that's true. But you also get equally annoying focus wobble with a Mak 180 on an HEQ5. :) You can lessen it considerably in both cases by putting a clothes peg on the focuser and using that for final fine-focus. It works well, and of course costs effectively nothing.

you might indeed want to consider [...] the seemingly very highly regarded AZ-4, if you don't see a need for an GEM mount.

No. Don't get that. I've got an AZ4 - and use it regularly. It's great for wide-field sweeping of the sky, but really only as a "second-scope" setup. I'd never consider it for primary scope use - and it's unsuitable for high-magnification viewing of the moon and planets.

Just thought I would put my two pence worth in. I bought the Celestron Nexstar 127 a few months ago and on my first night out with it it went through a fresh set of batteries after half an hour.

That's a completely different kettle of fish to the Supatrak :) The power demands are considerably higher than a SupaTrak. The actual power measurements for the SupaTrak, (which explain why its AA batteries last so long, are found here <click>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Don't get that. I've got an AZ4 - and use it regularly. It's great for wide-field sweeping of the sky, but really only as a "second-scope" setup. I'd never consider it for primary scope use - and it's unsuitable for high-magnification viewing of the moon and planets.

Which version do you have GB ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just stick a 5 kilo bag of sand on the tray that holds the tripod legs , simple job done steady as a rock . and i would still opt for the goto ..:)

Good advice. It just so happens I have a couple of sandbags in the shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I blame you guys!

I just cancelled my original supatrak order and placed an order with FLO for the synscan instead. It was a no brainer really given that FLO lowered their price and the retailer I ordered from previously weren't all that cheap. I ended up paying just 26 pounds extra!

Will be sure to post my thoughts after first light.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I blame you guys!

I just cancelled my original supatrak order and placed an order with FLO for the synscan instead. It was a no brainer really given that FLO lowered their price and the retailer I ordered from previously weren't all that cheap. I ended up paying just 26 pounds extra!

Will be sure to post my thoughts after first light.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

yes, I'd be very interested in your thoughts since I have to wait until October for mine....:) I cannot make decisions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.