Help me decide between Avalon Linear or Mesu-Mount 200

[ecormier]

I must say that I envy you Europeans with your mounts. Having spent countless hours tweaking my geared mount (EQ6), I like the idea of maintenance-free friction and belt-driven mounts. It's too bad nobody in North America manufactures them.

I want to replace my EQ6, but I'm torn between the Avalon Linear and Mesu-Mount 200. My maximum payload for long exposures will be an 8" RC with an OAG and ASI1600 camera. I also have a 6" Mak-Newt that I would use (731mm FL). I also have a 10" Meade SCT, but I use that only for planetary work. Living under the jet stream, I don't think I'll ever want to work at longer focal lengths for deep sky astrophotography, due to my generally mediocre seeing. As for visual, I already own a 14" dobsonian.

It seems the Avalon Linear should handle my maximum payloads for their intended use. Would the Mesu-Mount 200 gain me any performance benefit for my modest payloads and mediocre seeing?

I'm able to find Avalon Linear mounts on the used market, but used Mesu mounts are rare. I can afford a brand new Mesu mount, but I'm concerned that I'd be wasting money on performance that I don't need - money that could be better spent on better optics.

This mount will be installed in an observatory that will be completed next year. I live in a rural area with decent skies (Bortle Scale 3), so I would not be travelling often with this mount; perhaps once or twice a year at star parties. Portability would be nice, but would not be as important to me as guiding/tracking performance.

I'm keeping an eye on the new friction-driven OGEM, but I dare not be an early adopter living so far away from the manufacturer.

So, would a new Mesu-Mount 200 be worth it for me, over a used Avalon Linear?

[RayD]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

Nice choice to have.  I have the Mesu200 and it is excellent, can't fault it.  The benefit it may give you is the ability to mount 2 of your OTA's, as I do with my Esprit 100 and C8, so switching between deep sky and planetary is no more than a simple decision.

I'm sure others will offer opinions, but I guess there is a very good reason you don't see many used Mesu200's about.

[ecormier]

47 minutes ago, RayD said:

Hi and welcome to the forums.

Nice choice to have.  I have the Mesu200 and it is excellent, can't fault it.  The benefit it may give you is the ability to mount 2 of your OTA's, as I do with my Esprit 100 and C8, so switching between deep sky and planetary is no more than a simple decision.

I'm sure others will offer opinions, but I guess there is a very good reason you don't see many used Mesu200's about.

It would be nice if the Mesu could hold all of my OTAs:

• 80mm refractor
• 6" Mak-Newt
• 8" RC
• 10" SCT

I like working at different focal lengths according to the object and desired FOV.

I was thinking the SCT and Mak-Newt side-by-side, with the 80mm piggy-backed above the SCT, and the RC piggy-backed above the longer Mak Newt. It think the total weight would be under the Mesu's payload capacity, but I'm not sure about flexure and lateral balance. I've only ever mounted one OTA at a time and have no experience with multi-OTA setups.

You've certainly given me something to think about.

[RayD]

3 minutes ago, ecormier said:

It would be nice if the Mesu could hold all of my OTAs:

• 80mm refractor
• 6" Mak-Newt
• 8" RC
• 10" SCT

I like working at different focal lengths according to the object and desired FOV.

I was thinking the SCT and Mak-Newt side-by-side, with the 80mm stacked above the SCT, and the RC stacked above the longer Mak Newt. It think the total weight would be under the Mesu's payload capacity, but I'm not sure about flexure and lateral balance. I've only ever mounted one OTA at a time and have no experience with multi-OTA setups.

You've certainly given me something to think about.

I can't see why not.  Lucas believes the mount will take 100Kg.  I'm not in a position to confirm that, but I see no reason why it shouldn't if he says it will.  It would certainly take 2 or 3 of them for sure, but worth calculating the weights of all the kit to see how close it is.  

Balancing may be a bit of a task, but all food for thought.

[sloz1664]

I have the Avalon Linear and it tracks sublimely. If you need to load in excess of 20Kg then you are looking at the Mesu. As I have a Pulsar Dome with a 500mm wide aperture, loading large large scopes side by side was never an option. Although I do image two scopes piggybacked on my Avalon.

Nice dilemma to have though

Steve

 

[ecormier]

I'm hoping to hear from someone who's owned both and tried payloads similar to my 8" RC to see if there's any difference in FWHM. If there's not much difference, then I'd be more inclined to go with a used Linear over a new Mesu-200.

[ecormier]

While I think the Avalon would be sufficient for my current payloads, I'm leaning towards the Mesu at this point in order to be more future-proof. I hope to be set for life with this mount. The Mesu will also provide me the option of doing visual work inside my upcoming observatory with large-aperture scopes. With my luck, someone will invent some newfangled mount drive technology in 5 five years that will cost 1/4 as much and be 3 times better. ?

Thanks to everyone who provided guidance and information.

Without clutches, how does one balance the Mesu mount? I've searched for this, and can't seem to find anyone explaining how balancing works on a Mesu.

[Helen]

7 minutes ago, ecormier said:

While I think the Avalon would be sufficient for my current payloads, I'm leaning towards the Mesu at this point in order to be more future-proof. I hope to be set for life with this mount. The Mesu will also provide me the option of doing visual work inside my upcoming observatory with large-aperture scopes. With my luck, someone will invent some newfangled mount drive technology in 5 five years that will cost 1/4 as much and be 3 times better. ?

Thanks to everyone who provided guidance and information.

Without clutches, how does one balance the Mesu mount? I've searched for this, and can't seem to find anyone explaining how balancing works on a Mesu.

You balance with the power off.  The axes then move, although not as freely as a conventional mount.  You soon get a feel for balance though, by just pushing/pulling and comparing resistance.

Helen

[tomato]

Balancing a Mesu is a little strange with the drag of the friction drive to get used to, but with practice you can get it very close.

If you do go with the Mesu, I can reassure you it is portable, just take care lifting and you will need a big flightcase!

[steppenwolf]

I have the Mesu 200 and love it! Balancing is a little strange at first but as others have said, you pretty soon get the hang of it. I have a 6" and 4" refractor permanently mounted on it, each loaded with a camera and I have plenty of capacity to spare. A wonderful mount.

[Star101]

I have the Mesu 200. Its permanently mounted in my ror shed. I love it. 

Because the mount can take the weight, I have a C11 and a TS 65EQ Quad with EFW3 filterwheel, OAG, cameras. About 20Kg in total. PHD2 guides great.

It makes imaging a dream. My only real problem is clouds !!

[Helen]

I currently have a C11 on one side, and a piggy-backed system of  123mm and 98mm refractors on the other side (each with camera etc) - and a lot of counterweights!

Helen

[Laurin Dave]

Hopefully my Mesu will arrive soon to be loaded with an Esprit 150 and a 10" LX200.  But I also  wanted to say how lovely Steve (Steppenwolf) and Helen's profile pictures are.. 

[ecormier]

I chickened out of purchasing a Linear or Mesu, and ended up ordering an iOptron CEM60 instead, at almost a third of the price of the European mounts. I understand that the CEM60 is not in the same league as the Mesu, but I simply don't need the 75-100kg payload capacity at this point, and could better spend the money elsewhere.

My dream mount for my upcoming observatory is still the Mesu, and perhaps I'll end up getting one somewhere down the road. At that point, the CEM60 could be useful as a portable mount for dark sky sites.

Thanks again to everyone who shared their thoughts.

[Jkulin]

I have the iOptron CEM60EC and it is absolutely superb, brilliant guiding and a joy to use, but the maximum payload is 27Kgs, so I wouldn't go too close to this limit.

A few on here have seen my guiding on PHD2 and it really can't be faulted with an average RMS of well below 0.25

[Starflyer]

On 05/11/2018 at 19:23, ecormier said:

I'm able to find Avalon Linear mounts on the used market, but used Mesu mounts are rare.

I think this speaks volumes, with users needing to upgrade from Avalon mounts but not from Mesu mounts. 

[AngryDonkey]

8 hours ago, Starflyer said:

On 05/11/2018 at 23:23, ecormier said:

I'm able to find Avalon Linear mounts on the used market, but used Mesu mounts are rare.

I think this speaks volumes, with users needing to upgrade from Avalon mounts but not from Mesu mounts. 

In defence of the Avalon mount I don't think that's an entirely fair assessment ?. Looking at posts here and across the net, people who buy the Mesu often have a permanent or semi permanent setup and are less likely to sell it in a hurry. The payload capacity  is huge and at the moment I couldn't think of a better mount for this purpose than the Mesu (and there have been at least three Mesus up for sale on ABS recently, as well as a few Linears...).

For me the Avalon is really in a different category. It's definitely a portable mount, it's easy to use, has great tracking and is largely hassle and maintenance free. So for those reasons it's my top choice for a field mount (although I'm sure there are other good options in that price range) and I can't actually remember anyone giving it bad reviews.

So really when comparing the two it's a question of portability vs payload and getting the right tool for the job.

[swag72]

9 hours ago, Starflyer said:

I think this speaks volumes, with users needing to upgrade from Avalon mounts but not from Mesu mounts. 

I think most (myself included) only upgraded from an Avalon to a Mesu due to the weight capacity...... If I could have used the Avalon with a 152/1200mm refractor I most certainly would have done.

[kirkster501]

My MESU has been working great with TEC140, FSQ85, two cameras, PC and guidescope.  I am about to add my C925 onto it as well so that I can do more lunar work when it is clear (and whenever it is clear in the UK the moon is sure to be out).

[ollypenrice]

On 06/11/2018 at 00:02, ecormier said:

I'm hoping to hear from someone who's owned both and tried payloads similar to my 8" RC to see if there's any difference in FWHM. If there's not much difference, then I'd be more inclined to go with a used Linear over a new Mesu-200.

I've had both. I only sold the Linear when a used Mesu came up to work alongside the one I already have. (I am an astronomy provider, not a member of the idle rich!)

Both are excellent mounts but the Mesu is the better (and more expensive) of the two. It is the more stable and slightly more accurate of the two. I was using the Avalon with a TEC140 at 1.8"PP. I now use the TEC on the Mesu at 0.9"PP after a change of camera. I never tried the Avalon at that resolution but I'm pretty sure it would have occasionally been affected by the wind.

The Avalon was a very consistent performer. The Mesus are totally consistent performers. Being over-mounted is nice but probably not necessary in your case.

Can I say conclusively that in your shoes I'd go for the Mesu over the Avalon? Probably not, I think I'd be dithering on the question for months! Sorry. But if in doubt, the Mesu is the one.

Olly