Reasonable price?

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

Understand. I'm not an imager, though, and the funny thing I do prefer fork to equatorial mounts. I do have some concerns about the electronics, yes. 

For visual I, too, prefer alt-az and by a mile. We have a 14 inch LX200 here. It's very easy to like because it has a decent light grasp and short length, meaning viewing is comfortable and all views can be had from a limited range of positions. If there's a downside it's the focal length which rather crops the view on larger targets but you can't have everything in one scope. I inherited this instrument from a late friend. I think it must be the best part of ten years old but with low levels of use and everything works. The problem arises when the electronics stop working, as sometimes they do. The beast is rather large to send somewhere for expert attention. The handset is particularly poor with a tendency for the buttons to get stuck in the down position - and you have to press them quite hard in order to register the command. Steve Collingwood is probably the man you need to speak to if ever you need to attend to the electronics.

I wouldn't overload a Meade fork mount. The problem isn't the tripod (though mine's on a concrete pillar anyway.) The wobbles come from the drive mechanisms. Even slight contact with the eyepiece sets ours jiggling. This isn't a huge deal because you learn to take care - but it has implications for piggybacking refractors. (Tempting, I know, but I think our 14 inch is carrying enough weight as it is.)

Olly

[emadmoussa]

14" LX200 - that must be a beast. Is it ACF?

Thanks for the tip, I'll put Steve Collingwood's name in my scope emergency book. Who knows?! 

 

[ollypenrice]

https://sctelescopes.com/telescope/

Olly

[emadmoussa]

1 minute ago, ollypenrice said:

https://sctelescopes.com/telescope/

Olly

Thank you. Bookmarked. 

[ollypenrice]

Just now, emadmoussa said:

14" LX200 - that must be a beast. Is it ACF?

Thanks for the tip, I'll put Steve Collingwood's name in my scope emergency book. Who knows?! 

 

No, it's the standard SCT. I do have a ten inch ACF though I'll probably sell it since I'm happy to stick with the TEC140 for my higher resolution imaging. Swapping scopes around is becoming more bother than I think I want!

Olly

[ollypenrice]

Be aware that even the 12 inch is not a scope you'd want to be moving around. When I had a 10 inch LX200 in the UK I had it permanently attached to a kind of timber palette designed so that I could slide a sack truck under it, attach one safety strap and then roll it out onto a concrete pad in the garden. It never left its palette. (This idea came from Phil Harrington's Star Ware book.) Here the 14 inch lives under a fully roll-off 'sentry box' so you're up and running in a minute. In the first pic the sentry box cladding was old so I subsequently re-clad it in honour of its new contents and of its previous owner.

 

Although I've owned several SCTs it is really this larger one which has won me over. The 12 inch should not really be very different, I don't think.

Olly

 

 

 

[emadmoussa]

Olly, can I pick your brain for a second?

What's the difference between the LX600 12" and the RCX400 12" ( https://www.telescopehouse.com/offers/preowned-meade-12-rcx400-and-tripod.html ) ? I mean, if I go fro the RCX400, apart from the complex electronics, what do I gain/lose visually? Or otherwise?  

RCX400: 

[MarsG76]

5-6 year old SCT will be a good purchase in pristine condition at nearly half of the price is a very good deal... the SCT mirrors are closed away from the elements by the corrector plate so tend to last a lot longer than ones like newtonians... 

I read online about a user with a 20 year old SCTs that still works like intended... 

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

Olly, can I pick your brain for a second?

What's the difference between the LX600 12" and the RCX400 12" ( https://www.telescopehouse.com/offers/preowned-meade-12-rcx400-and-tripod.html ) ? I mean, if I go fro the RCX400, apart from the complex electronics, what do I gain/lose visually? Or otherwise?  

RCX400: 

From what I remember the RCX was designed for the imager and had electronic control of collimation screws, focus etc. I presume the optics are the ACF kind. Meade lost a legal battle over the right to call their flat field SCTs Ritchey Chrétiens. They never were Ritchey Chrétiens and don't resemble them in any way. So they were re-named ACF. Given that the electronics are the weakest link I wouldn't be too tempted by having more of them and the flat field will make little difference to the visual observer.

I dare say the day will come when our fork mount packs up and if that happens I'll put the OTA on an EQ8 or (ideally) a Mesu. The OTA is electronics-free on the LX200s. If the in-tube electronics act up on the RCX400 life might get difficult - as the advert is honest enough to point out.

Olly

[John]

5 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

Meade LX200 12"

A friend of mine bought one for £1,000 plus the costs of quite a long car journey to collect it.

They don't hold their value that well. Not that they are bad scopes as far as I know.

[Davey-T]

3 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

What's the difference between the LX600 12" and the RCX400 12" ( https://www.telescopehouse.com/offers/preowned-meade-12-rcx400-and-tripod.html ) ? I mean, if I go fro the RCX400, apart from the complex electronics, what do I gain/lose visually? Or otherwise?  

The RCX as said was touted as a magic imaging scope but turned out most owners needed to be magicians to get them to work, I'd steer well clear of them.

When my 10" was on a tripod in alt/az mode the GoTo was always spot on, not so good on a wedge, the alt/az fork is a joy for visual use.

Dave

 

 

[Peter Drew]

I'm on my third 12" LX200, I've had a few electronic issues but the optics have been satisfactory. For visual use they are far better left in the alt-az mode, more stable and the goto works better.

[emadmoussa]

1 hour ago, John said:

A friend of mine bought one for £1,000 plus the costs of quite a long car journey to collect it.

They don't hold their value that well. Not that they are bad scopes as far as I know.

Ouch!! 

[Peter Drew]

2 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

Ouch!! 

This price drop doesn't reflect the performance of the telescope, more to do with finding a buyer, not only with the cash to spare but also somewhere suitable to house it. Believe me, they're not "grab and go"! On this type of circumstance I was able to purchase a complete 16"SCT setup including a £1800 Gigawedge for just over £5000.   Original total price over £19,000   ?

[emadmoussa]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

This price drop doesn't reflect the performance of the telescope, more to do with finding a buyer, not only with the cash to spare but also somewhere suitable to house it. Believe me, they're not "grab and go"! On this type of circumstance I was able to purchase a complete 16"SCT setup including a £1800 Gigawedge for just over £5000.   Original total price over £19,000   ?

Did you try putting the tripod on a dolly? 

[John]

2 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

This price drop doesn't reflect the performance of the telescope, more to do with finding a buyer, not only with the cash to spare but also somewhere suitable to house it. Believe me, they're not "grab and go"! ...

I do agree with this. I think that quite often people with some interest in the hobby find themselves with a chunk of cash and decide to get something that will last them a lifetime, will avoid aperture fever etc, etc. It all seems good until the thing is unpacked and assembled. The first few uses are driven by enthusuasm but gradually the hassle of using such a large scope eats away at this and increasingly the scope remains unused, eventually to be sold either to move to something more practical or to move to another hobby.

I regularly use my clubs 10" Meade LX200 and that is quite a lump to put together. Our chairman has a Celestron CPC 11 Edge which I have helped assemble a couple of times and thats a touch larger again. By 12" the SCT seems to have grown appreciably again and at 14" it's a monster !. I've unpacked a 14" Meade SCT and the box the OTA and forks came in seemed really massive. It was a two person job to carefully lift the OTA and forks onto the wedge. That scope was to be observatory mounted and I can see why.

 

[Peter Drew]

35 minutes ago, emadmoussa said:

Did you try putting the tripod on a dolly? 

No I didn't. Both of my 16" SCT's are on piers and housed in observatories. The OTA's weigh over 120lbs minus the forks.

[emadmoussa]

5 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

No I didn't. Both of my 16" SCT's are on piers and housed in observatories. The OTA's weigh over 120lbs minus the forks.

You probably need to eat a ton of spinach and grow anatomically incorrect yet puffed up arms like Popeye to lift them. For me, I'l find a way to sit the tripod on wheels to roll the set up in and out of the storage area. 

[Peter Drew]

Yes, I don't see a problem with that, the wheels that is, not the spinach!    ?

[ollypenrice]

7 hours ago, emadmoussa said:

You probably need to eat a ton of spinach and grow anatomically incorrect yet puffed up arms like Popeye to lift them. For me, I'l find a way to sit the tripod on wheels to roll the set up in and out of the storage area. 

Here's the problem: you want pneumatic  tyres for rolling the scope around to avoid rattling it to bits, but pneumatic tyres are no good as a platform for observing. I don't have any pics of my old sack truck palette, or sled, but it's in Star Ware, as I mentioned earlier. Maybe I can photocopy the article if I can find the book. The idea is that you make a triangular wooden base a bit bigger than the footprint of the tripod and bolt the tripod to that. This triangular sled stands on fixed wooden blocks at each of the three corners. These are high enough to allow a sack truck's platform to be rolled under it. You put a safety strap round the scope and upper sack truck, tip it backwards and roll it where you like. You set it down and withdraw the sack truck.

I remember baulking at the price of the sack truck - about £35 at the time, which is over twenty years ago. I still have it and use it several times a week to move everything from rocks to furniture and guests use it to ferry their boxed instruments up to the observing site. Could be the best £35 I ever spent. (Indeed I used it to remove a dead dishwasher and install a new one only four days ago.)

Olly

[Gina]

A sack barrow is an indispensable piece of kit!

[emadmoussa]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Here's the problem: you want pneumatic  tyres for rolling the scope around to avoid rattling it to bits, but pneumatic tyres are no good as a platform for observing. I don't have any pics of my old sack truck palette, or sled, but it's in Star Ware, as I mentioned earlier. Maybe I can photocopy the article if I can find the book. The idea is that you make a triangular wooden base a bit bigger than the footprint of the tripod and bolt the tripod to that. This triangular sled stands on fixed wooden blocks at each of the three corners. These are high enough to allow a sack truck's platform to be rolled under it. You put a safety strap round the scope and upper sack truck, tip it backwards and roll it where you like. You set it down and withdraw the sack truck.

I remember baulking at the price of the sack truck - about £35 at the time, which is over twenty years ago. I still have it and use it several times a week to move everything from rocks to furniture and guests use it to ferry their boxed instruments up to the observing site. Could be the best £35 I ever spent. (Indeed I used it to remove a dead dishwasher and install a new one only four days ago.)

Olly

Thinking about building something like this: 

[emadmoussa]

What do you call these 'bolts'? 

[emadmoussa]

1 hour ago, Gina said:

A sack barrow is an indispensable piece of kit!

Got one, but it won't work for a large tripod. Ideal for a Dob, though. 

[Davey-T]

9 minutes ago, emadmoussa said:

What do you call these 'bolts'? 

You can buy the bits and make them from various sources like this.

Dave

https://www.goodhanduk.co.uk/Catalogue/Standard-Parts/Star-Palm-Grips/K0152-Star-Knobs-Plastic-Parts-In-Steel-Size-M4-M16