Tak FC100DL F9

[Stu]

31 minutes ago, 25585 said:

I will try these suggestons out! Hoping to use a ST80 as finder in the side saddle using a finder with 40mm Plossl, so 10x80.

 

Would it not make sense to use the top saddle for the finder and the side saddle for the main scope? The top saddle is, as John says, more designed for shorter scopes or binos.

[25585]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Would it not make sense to use the top saddle for the finder and the side saddle for the main scope? The top saddle is, as John says, more designed for shorter scopes or binos.

I have put on counter weights so hopefully that will work as John said. If Skytee mounts are made with such soft metal bolts, it's not reassuring about their more expensive equatorials! 

Perhaps going to Wickes and buying hardened steel bolts to use instead would help? This reminds me of the years I spent fixing Japanese motor cycles with single use screws etc and the ease of destroying threads and heads. 

[Stu]

23 minutes ago, 25585 said:

I have put on counter weights so hopefully that will work as John said. If Skytee mounts are made with such soft metal bolts, it's not reassuring about their more expensive equatorials! 

Perhaps going to Wickes and buying hardened steel bolts to use instead would help? This reminds me of the years I spent fixing Japanese motor cycles with single use screws etc and the ease of destroying threads and heads. 

Well I would still use the stronger side saddle, what is stopping you doing that?

Be wary of hardened steel bolts into cast metal, could cause problems. Check what others use.

[25585]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

Well I would still use the stronger side saddle, what is stopping you doing that?

Be wary of hardened steel bolts into cast metal, could cause problems. Check what others use.

Top saddle gives extra height and with the pillar and legs fully extended I can look through at eye height without having to bend at all, good for long viewing and my back! Also less strain on the 2 bolts holding the clamp to mount and the puck's holes. Probably neither strong metal either. 

I would be interested to know what metal is used in other makes of side saddle alt az mounts as several kinds are used by SGL members. 

[Pig]

Be careful when using harder material bolts as soft bolts are normally a design feature and are used to ensure the bolts fail first before ripping the threads out in the mount ....on the other hand it could just be a ridiculous cost related saving by SW...... it’s a lot easier to change a bent bolt than it is to helicoil or retap the mount ?

[Stu]

2 hours ago, 25585 said:

Also less strain on the 2 bolts holding the clamp to mount and the puck's holes. Probably neither strong metal either. 

The height bit I get, the rest I don’t. These mounts are designed to a weight rating and the bolts clamp the surface of the dovetail clamp against the surface of the mount axis. This provides a tight friction ‘bond’ which is what supports the scope. The bolts have little or no vertical stress on them. If you leave the bolts loose then yes, they have weight on them but not if done up correctly. I think it is worth developing an undertstanding of how these things work so you do not have to over-engineer everything for your own peace of mind.

This is a 20kg 6” ED refractor held in two rings, with a losmandy plate. Only two bolts attaching it to the mount head and I never had any problems, nor do a multitude of others using the same type of mounts.

[iPeace]

I repeat. Been there. Overkill.

[Timebandit]

7 hours ago, 25585 said:

I have put on counter weights so hopefully that will work as John said. If Skytee mounts are made with such soft metal bolts, it's not reassuring about their more expensive equatorials! 

Perhaps going to Wickes and buying hardened steel bolts to use instead would help? This reminds me of the years I spent fixing Japanese motor cycles with single use screws etc and the ease of destroying threads and heads. 

 

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Well I would still use the stronger side saddle, what is stopping you doing that?

Be wary of hardened steel bolts into cast metal, could cause problems. Check what others use.

 

40 minutes ago, Pig said:

Be careful when using harder material bolts as soft bolts are normally a design feature and are used to ensure the bolts fail first before ripping the threads out in the mount ....on the other hand it could just be a ridiculous cost related saving by SW...... it’s a lot easier to change a bent bolt than it is to helicoil or retap the mount ?

 

I am not sure what metal is used in these mounts, but usually some sort of alloy mix is employed in such casts these days.

But putting hardened bolts in as "upgrades" is a recipe for disaster at times. Manufacturing and design process usually takes into account of stress involved in parts to which they are designed for. The design and material process would or should allow for the stock bolts to strip first if over stressed in any way . Rather than the thread taps in the mount being stripped first. As it is a lot cheaper and easier to replace a threaded screw/bolt than it is to replace/helicoil or recut/retap a thread into the mount itself. 

I hope this help☺

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John]

If you have a look around the web at scopes mounted on the Skytee II mount, almost invariably the clamp on the end of the alt axis is used to hold heavier scopes with the top one reserved for short, lightweight ones. 

The big scope in the 1st pic below weighs 12kg.

If height is important then you might want to consider a taller tripod such as a Berlebach Uni 28.

[25585]

1 hour ago, iPeace said:

I repeat. Been there. Overkill.

No such thing protecting expensive property. 

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, 25585 said:

No such thing protecting expensive property. 

The solutions which 99.99% of astronomers use to protect their expensive kit are designed for the job and are perfectly adequate.

[25585]

52 minutes ago, John said:

If you have a look around the web at scopes mounted on the Skytee II mount, almost invariably the clamp on the end of the alt axis is used to hold heavier scopes with the top one reserved for short, lightweight ones. 

The big scope in the 1st pic below weighs 12kg.

If height is important then you might want to consider a taller tripod such as a Berlebach Uni 28.

According to FLO the Uni 28 has maximum height of 5 feet. That is the same as my EQ5 tripod. Pier & Skytee top plate raise the scope height to over 6 feet. If Berlebach make taller tripods than their 28, that would be what I might look into. 

Going off at an angle, there does not seem to be a HEQ5 alt az EQ mount - either 5 or 6 models. Do HEQ5 mounts fit on EQ5 bases & vice versa?

HEQ5 would be better for my 120 Equinox, but I would want an alt az option too. 

[25585]

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

The solutions which 99.99% of astronomers use to protect their expensive kit are designed for the job and are perfectly adequate.

OK. So I am one of the 0.01% paranoid element  

[CraigT82]

I'm afraid I'm a +1 for advocating the use of the end mount rather than the top mount!

Using the top mount the CoG of the scope is about 6" away from the axis of rotation and if you happen to remove the C/Ws  forgetting to tighten the lock thumb screw tight that scope is gonna swing down violently (and even if you have tightened the lock thumb screw there you are only relying on a little bit of friction to stop the scope swinging down).

Using the end mount you dont have this problem as the scopes CoG is in line with the axis.  Sure you lose a few inches in EP height but that can be made up in other ways.

[Moonshane]

Hey, it's your scope so run it how you like 

You've not done anything that cannot be put back to standard spec again after all. I tend to always change to CNC rings if I can get the right size and they do look good.

Ultimately, you now have a scope that will balance well, has plenty of places for accessories and is well protected too.

Hope it works out well for you 

[John]

3 hours ago, 25585 said:

According to FLO the Uni 28 has maximum height of 5 feet. That is the same as my EQ5 tripod. Pier & Skytee top plate raise the scope height to over 6 feet. If Berlebach make taller tripods than their 28, that would be what I might look into. 

Going off at an angle, there does not seem to be a HEQ5 alt az EQ mount - either 5 or 6 models. Do HEQ5 mounts fit on EQ5 bases & vice versa?

HEQ5 would be better for my 120 Equinox, but I would want an alt az option too. 

The Uni 28 is the tallest that they make. It extends quite a bit taller than either the standard EQ5 and HEQ5 tripods (excluding the pier extension, which would fit onto the Berlebach as well of course). It's also very stable and dampens vibrations well - Elm is a great material to make tripods from and Berlebach use it particularly well.

HEQ5, Skytee II, EQ5 and EQ3-2 mounts share the same base compatibility. The EQ6 and AZEQ5 and AZEQ6 use a different fitting.

I expect you are fed up of people suggesting alternative options and different ways to do things by now so I'll shut up on this

Enjoy using the scope

 

 

[25585]

Need some more weights. For both Tak & 100 Equinox, the single weight that came with my Skytee is not enough. I have more, currently used for the P-mount for binoculars. 

Skytees need smaller diameter weights, so longer than the average doughnut shape. Are there any makes which would suit?

[John]

I've used the standard 5kg Skywatcher weights on the Skytee II and they fitted and worked fine but ....... this was with the C/W bar on the end of the altitude axis. With the C/W bar in downward facing mode you do need slimmer weights to avoid them contacting the mount. As long as the central bore is 20mm (I think thats correct) they should fit.

This Bresser branded one might be OK:

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/bresser-counterbalance-45kg-for-exos-2eq5.html

 

 

[25585]

Hmmm.

[mikeDnight]

Looks nice! It's a shame Jaegers Optical Corporation isn't still making lenses, otherwise you could get rid of the lens too! 

[25585]

3 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Looks nice! It's a shame Jaegers Optical Corporation isn't still making lenses, otherwise you could get rid of the lens too! 

See the photo of big Tak above. White focuser

Anyway I am happy with the OE so not upgrading. Also the id plate looks good.

[mikeDnight]

3 minutes ago, 25585 said:

See the photo of big Tak above. White focuser

I feel pretty certain that's not a Tak. The FS128 didn't have screws holding its dew shield in position, and theres no Tak writing on the shade and no Sun warning label on the tube. Plus the paint seems too white, the blue too dark and the tube looks too short.

Here are a few price of my FS128 for comparison.

 

 my friend Gain observing a young crescent moon in 2003.

[25585]

Impressive tripod and mount Mike, what make?

[mikeDnight]

9 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Impressive tripod and mount Mike, what make?

The black mount was a Celestron German EQ made by Losmandy. It was the best mount I've ever owned and was much better designed than the Losmandy GM8 that replaced it, and the Losmandy G11 that replaced that. It seems the folk who have them today won't part with them. Unless they are stupid like me! Just another one of my idiot moves I'm afraid!

[John]

3 hours ago, 25585 said:

See the photo of big Tak above. White focuser

Anyway I am happy with the OE so not upgrading. Also the id plate looks good.

If you are refrring to the pics that I posted, there are no Taks in them. The big frac is a 200mm Istar Triplet. I was using it to illustrate where you put heavier instruments on a Skytee II mount.

The focuser could be any number of brands - many look the same including Primalucelabs ones.