Travel setup ... with checked airline bag?

[900SL]

On 22/04/2023 at 16:21, Louis D said:

Whatever you take, put an Air Tag in it somewhere in the case of theft by air cargo handlers.  They mostly take electronics, but have been known to take photography equipment.  Telescopes resemble photography equipment.  Don't think putting clothes around it hides it.  Every bag is screened via X-ray scanner.  Those running the scanners tip off conspirators deep in the bowels of the airport of anything valuable looking.

I've flown literally dozens of times with valuables in checked luggage, everything from PC's, monitors, mounts, speakers, hi-fi, and once with a 12,000 dollar carpet followed next time with a 4,000 dollar carpet. The risk of theft is greatly exaggerated in Europe, although it may be different in the States.

I would however take any cameras, scopes or lenses in carry on where possible. Checked in luggage gets rough treatment at times.

[Elp]

Are dovetail bars allowed? I got the impression anything which could be used to whack is prohibited, including tripods.

[900SL]

Just now, Elp said:

Are dovetail bars allowed? I got the impression anything which could be used to whack is prohibited, including tripods.

It's a bit of a grey area, but anything that could be used as a weapon (eg a club) has to go in the hold.

I always check a tripod and take a carry on backpack for camera, lens, scope, Fornax LT. Not had a problem with a vixen dovetail attached to a telescope

[PeterStudz]

25 minutes ago, 900SL said:

It's a bit of a grey area, but anything that could be used as a weapon (eg a club) has to go in the hold.

I always check a tripod and take a carry on backpack for camera, lens, scope, Fornax LT. Not had a problem with a vixen dovetail attached to a telescope

I didn’t have any problems with a dovetail. But I did have a counter weight & bar that I put in the hold with the tripod. I did think that the weight plus bar could be seen as a club type of weapon so better to be safe rather than sorry. 

[Dark Raven]

On 23/04/2023 at 00:02, Stu said:

A C5 would be another good option,

I would agree with the caveat that you are familiar with the instrument and are able to collimate it fairly easy/fast. It is quite probable that (any) SC will need some degree of collimation after transport.

14 hours ago, Louis D said:

The only concern I would have with carry-ons would be if you board late and all the overhead bins are full

Unfortunately and in regular circumstances, you do not have influence which boarding group gets to board first/last. Only way around that is to buy priority boarding.

[Basementboy]

On 22/04/2023 at 08:30, ollypenrice said:

I've flown sixty times with a bicycle in the hold

brave man! though i assume your bikes do not have any glass components

 

On 22/04/2023 at 12:14, Highburymark said:

100mm Apo, minus the focuser and dew shield to fit into hand luggage - pretty much a dream set up.    

this is what i'm currently looking for!

 

On 22/04/2023 at 12:14, Highburymark said:

85mm Apo - my current set up. This is the one I’ll stick with. There is so much to see travelling when you’re not used to dark skies that the slightly small aperture isn’t really an issue. 
If you’re determined to take a larger scope, I do like the idea of a C5 though - and you wouldn’t need to risk it in the hold - it would easily fit into hand luggage. 

I get that - it's just that I get to dark skies so rarely I really want to maximise the experience as it may not happen again for a while. Still, I take your point

As for the C5, I have never used one – really have no idea. Focal length shorter than a Mak so maybe a better all-rounder? Will the sharpness be an issue now that I'm used to refractors? I suppose the only way to find out for sure is to try it

[Basementboy]

On 22/04/2023 at 23:02, Stu said:

If you want to take a 150p, don’t bother with the base, take a tripod and alt az mount.

Thanks Stu - good thought. I wonder if my AZ5 is up to the job? Or it might be that the CF tripod proves more of an issue, vibration-wise

 

On 22/04/2023 at 23:02, Stu said:

Second thought, take a 4” frac. You have to choose carefully but I took my Tak FC100DC abroad a few times

Not quite there yet but I do like 4" fracs and am looking for one of the synthetic fluoride ones - next best thing?

[cajen2]

The 150p Heritage is certainly small and light enough to fit in a carry-on bag, plus a small mount / tripod (don't forget it comes with a dovetail). I'd have thought your AZ5 would be fine.

[Roy Challen]

18 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

I do like 4" fracs and am looking for one of the synthetic fluoride ones - next best thing?

Hmm not sure about that, fluoride goes in toothpaste, fluorite goes in telescopes😜!

[Basementboy]

Sorry, was I not clear in the original post that I'm after a portable toothbrush?

[Louis D]

3 hours ago, Basementboy said:

As for the C5, I have never used one – really have no idea. Focal length shorter than a Mak so maybe a better all-rounder? Will the sharpness be an issue now that I'm used to refractors? I suppose the only way to find out for sure is to try it

My only concern about traveling with any SCT is the probability of the thin corrector plate cracking during handling.  The thick meniscus corrector of a Mak has no such issues.

Click on the following posting showing lots of shattered SCT corrector plates:

By was of comparison, here's a damaged, but not shattered, Mak corrector:

Mask off that damaged area with tape, and you're good to go observing again.

[Stu]

16 hours ago, Basementboy said:

Thanks Stu - good thought. I wonder if my AZ5 is up to the job? Or it might be that the CF tripod proves more of an issue, vibration-wise

If you search for posts about heritage 130p by Mark at Beaufort there should be lots of info about tripod mounting them. I do use a CF tripod but it’s a Gitzo so pretty stable. I’ve tried a couple of others which aren’t that steady.

https://stargazerslounge.com/search/?&q=Heritage 130p&quick=1&author=Mark at Beaufort&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

[Stu]

 

 

[Highburymark]

18 hours ago, Basementboy said:

brave man! though i assume your bikes do not have any glass components

 

this is what i'm currently looking for!

 

I get that - it's just that I get to dark skies so rarely I really want to maximise the experience as it may not happen again for a while. Still, I take your point

As for the C5, I have never used one – really have no idea. Focal length shorter than a Mak so maybe a better all-rounder? Will the sharpness be an issue now that I'm used to refractors? I suppose the only way to find out for sure is to try it

I think a C5 would be a compromise optically after a refractor, though there are clearly lots of good SCTs out there. The only reasons for choosing a C5 would be aperture and compactness for travel. Nothing can beat a smallish ED/Apo refractor for sharpness, flexibility in terms of targets, and ease of travel - ie not having to worry about collimation. 

[Basementboy]

On 22/04/2023 at 23:02, Stu said:

I had a 150p until recently and NEVER used the base!

What are you mounting the 150p on in this photo, Stu? Is that a Giro WR? And how sturdy is the tripod you're using? 

I've got an AZ5 and a smallish CF tripod but worried they won't be up to the task. (The AZ5 feels awfully heavy on its own.)

[LDW1]

9 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

What are you mounting the 150p on in this photo, Stu? Is that a Giro WR? And how sturdy is the tripod you're using? 

I've got an AZ5 and a smallish CF tripod but worried they won't be up to the task. (The AZ5 feels awfully heavy on its own.)

That AZ5 is a pretty solid mount if it can't handle your scope it would be hard to believe !

[Basementboy]

9 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

That AZ5 is a pretty solid mount if it can't handle your scope it would be hard to believe !

Oh yeah it's sturdy but I worry about its added weight on the tripod and resulting potential for vibration... 

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, Basementboy said:

What are you mounting the 150p on in this photo, Stu? Is that a Giro WR? And how sturdy is the tripod you're using? 

I've got an AZ5 and a smallish CF tripod but worried they won't be up to the task. (The AZ5 feels awfully heavy on its own.)

To be honest it was an Ercole and a Gitzo tripod, overkill really.

I sold my Giro-WR but it, or a mini would do the job. I use a ScopeTech Zero now but they have stopped manufacturing them unfortunately. I e not used an AZ5 but I’m sure it would be ok.

Tripods are trickier, always a balance between weight and stability, particularly if travelling. The Gitzo is excellent, but I’m sure there are good options out there for less cash.

[LDW1]

3 hours ago, Basementboy said:

Oh yeah it's sturdy but I worry about its added weight on the tripod and resulting potential for vibration... 

So what are you going to get for a decent price that is more solid than the AZ5 ? I put my 20lb+ 127mm refractor on it with no problem, I mean if you go to real high powers, you get what you deserve, lol. That AZ5 weighs 20+ lbs.

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, LDW1 said:

That AZ5 weighs 20+ lbs.

With tripod.  The head is only 5 pounds.  The tripod is 12.3 pounds.  I generally think of them separately since most high end alt-az mounts don't come with tripods.

[The60mmKid]

A question that may be relevant is what type of observing do you wish to do? Mainly rich field... which is what I'd focus on if traveling to a dark site? Or a bit of everything? The magnifications you wish to use ought to influence your choice of mounts and tripods. If you're sticking to low/medium magnifications, you aren't as compelled to use a solid mount/tripod. I'm sure you know all of this, but it doesn't seem to have come up in this discussion so far.

A C5 isn't as sharp as a refractor. But it'll gather plenty of light for such a small scope. Look up the dimensions... They're the size of a coffee can. The light weight and short moment arm means that it doesn't require much mounting. My C5 is happy on the 2lb fluid head, on which it is stable even at 300x.

If you use a focal reducer, a C5 will yield a 2° FOV, which is quite nice w/ 5 inches of aperture. 

I consider a 100mm refractor in another size/weight category for traveling... Unless you have something like a Takahashi FC-100DC. But then the question arises: How much do you wish to invest in this setup? The C5 setup I posted earlier cost about $500, including the OTA, dew shield, mount, and tripod. The whole setup weighs about 10lbs.

I also wouldn't worry about a cracked corrector plate if you use the objective cap, double box the OTA, and take it in a hard-shell carry on suitcase.

[The60mmKid]

And I'll add: I wouldn't recommend a table-top dob as a travel scope. The reason is that you need a suitable table. How would it feel to take all this cool stuff across the ocean to a dark site and then give up because you didn't find the right table in Arizona? (Note: I am not theorizing; I am opining from experience. I've owned a table top dob, many refractors, and a C5.)

[LDW1]

8 hours ago, Louis D said:

With tripod.  The head is only 5 pounds.  The tripod is 12.3 pounds.  I generally think of them separately since most high end alt-az mounts don't come with tripods.

I weighed mine several times on a quality scale, complete it weighed about 21 lb !  Thats with the heavy stainless steel legs.

Edited April 29, 2023 by LDW1

[LDW1]

The thread started out, I thought, about lite weight gear that could be carried on air flights as carry on ! Now its progressed to some pretty heavy (AZ5) gear that can't be stored other than in a hold of a plane. Maybe i'm wrong, I have misread something ?

[Louis D]

1 hour ago, LDW1 said:

I weighed mine several times on a quality scale, complete it weighed about 21 lb !  Thats with the heavy stainless steel legs.

How much is the mount head alone?  You might be able to save considerable weight with an alternate tripod made from aluminum, wood, or carbon fiber.