Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [William Optics] Re: FLT 132 f/7 APO Refractor

Expand Messages
  • Matt Taylor
    Hi, I noticed on CN that one FLT 132 owner already has a Moonlite focuser installed on his FLT 132, so I think Moonlite probably already has a flange to fit
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,
       
      I noticed on CN that one FLT 132 owner already has a Moonlite focuser installed on his FLT 132, so I think Moonlite probably already has a flange to fit the scope and sending yours in would not be required. I'm considering getting a Moonlite for my FLT 132 but I hate to give up the camera angle adjuster which the Moonlite unit does not have.
       
      Matt
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:33 AM
      Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: FLT 132 f/7 APO Refractor

      Stephen;
      Many thanks for the info.....I to have problems with the focuser on the 110MM TMB...it has that jerky touch on occassion and can not retract or hold well anything over 3-4lbs. I have been playing with the tension screw adjustment on the bottom but is certainly is not as smooth  as Starlite tech. that I once had on a SCT.
      I just do not wish to alter the look of the scope and I do not like the idea of sending in the scope to Moonlite or Starlite for a fitting....you may have the same thoughts. BTW I to would give the 110MM TMB thumbs up except for the focuser which I would like to be smoother and hold the weight better!
       
       
      ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
      From: "gille6565" <gille6565@yahoo. com.au>

      Howard

      Have a look at this thread on CN, which itself links to earlier review
      threads:

      http://www.cloudyni ghts.com/ ubbthreads/ showflat. php/Cat/0/ Number/2149289/ page/0/view/ collapsed/ sb/5/o/all/ fpart/1

      Generally I would give my FLT132 10/10 for optical quality, 10/10 for
      general build quality and 8/10 for the focuser - I marked down the
      focuser because while its very good it's not quite as good as say a
      Moonlight or Feathertouch, it can slip under heavy loads and I think
      there is a bit too much play in the fine focus. I'm still
      experimenting with adjusting the focuser though so I might be able to
      get it even better.

      Stephen

      --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, lazhow@... wrote:
      >
      gt; Hi Stephen;
      > I am on the wait list for the WO FLT 132 MM scope and would really
      like to hear your thoughts and opinion on the scope. I cannot find any
      reviews and would appreciate your input.
      > Thanks
      > Howard
      > WO 110MM TMB
      > DM4
      > DSC
      > M7E---ordered
      > TSL5 Tripod---ordered
      >
      > ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
      > From: "gille6565" <gille6565@. ..>
      > This is a good option. The size and weight of refractors (OTA plus
      > mount) goes up dramatically with aperature.
      >
      > For example - my WO Megrez 90 is mounted on a camera alt-az mount and
      > I can carry the entire unit outside in one hand.
      >
      > But my FLT132 on EQ-6 can barely be lifted as one unit, and even then
      > you risk rupturing your back, and needs to be broken down into several
      > parts and assembled/dissemble d each time you use it.
      >
      > Stephen
      >
      > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, lazhow@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Rich;
      > > I did not see that you considered the FLT 110MM TMB scope. Now at a
      > a focal 770MM you can get excellent magnification but more importantly
      > wonderful resolution. No it is not a 132MM but it weighs onlt 12 lbs
      > and a mount that can handle 20lbs would work very well....think it
      > over...check reviews .... Also you now have widened you choice of
      > mount and for less cash outlay.
      > > Howard
      > > FLT 110MM TMB
      > > DM4 mount
      > > Space Commander DSC
      > >
      > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
      > > From: "doublestarguy" <richardjepeal@ >
      > > Thanks Jeffrey for your input. I guess weight will be the concern for
      > > I cannot use a spacebuggy. I would have to carry the tele scope down
      > > 7 back steps. Sooooo. I guess the FLT 132 is not my dream scope.
      > > Thanks again.
      > >
      > > Rich
      > >
      > > -- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "Jeffrey Rhinesmith"
      > > <jeffreyrhinesmith@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Rich,
      > > >
      > > > If you opt for the FLT 132, I think that the Orion Sirius EQ-G may
      > > > prove to be "significantly less" of a mount than you'll need...
      > > >
      > > > Starting with an FLT 132 at 9 kg or about 20 pounds, you'll need
      > > to
      > > > add in the weight of tube rings, a dovetail plate, a finder scope
      > > of
      > > > some sort along with its associated mounting hardware...and at
      > > least
      > > > a couple of more pounds of diagonal and eyepiece...not to mention,
      &g t; > > several pounds of counterweights to achieve balance...
      > > >
      > > > It's going to add up, real quick...
      > > >
      > > > Additively, I think that you're going to exceed the advertised 30
      > > lb
      > > > payload of the Sirius without question. Probably, the Orion Atlas
      > > EQ-
      > > > G with an advertised payload cability of 40 lbs would be "the
      > > minimum
      > > > mount" that you'd need for an FLT 132. You may be able to push
      > > the
      > > > payload limit on these Synta EQ mounts if you have a more compact
      > > OTA
      > > > like an SCT, but the significantly longer moment arms of a medium
      > > > aperture refractor are less stable when you get to the upper
      > > limit...
      > > >
      > > > I don't have any direct hands-on experience with the Celestron
      > > CGE,
      > > > o ther than a general impression from others that it's fairly
      > > stable,
      > > > robust, but comparatively over-priced for what you get. If you're
      > > > getting up to the $3000 and plus range for an EQ mount, I'd
      > > probably
      > > > look more at something like a Losmandy G-11 which carries 60 lbs
      > > and
      > > > even with the optional Gemini GO TO system, it's still in the same
      > > > ballpark at $3195.00 USD, straight retail...
      > > >
      > > > And...you could probably do considerably better than that on the
      > > used
      > > > market...
      > > >
      > > > As far as your weight concern, if you get "enough mount" to handle
      > > an
      > > > FLT 132, you're probably not going to be able to comfortably lift
      > > and
      > > > manhandle it, unless it's in pieces. JMI and few other vendors
      > > make
      > > > a number of variants of "scope buggies" which I use to avoid the
      > > wear
      > > > and tear on my back. Of course, this type of scopebuggy
      > > arrangement
      > > > usually requires you to leave it set up, so you'll have to
      > > negotiate
      > > > the new addition to the living room furniture with your
      > > significant
      > > > other...
      > > >
      > > > Good luck...:)...
      > > >
      > > > My bottom line advice is "don't under buy a mount" for any
      > > scope...it
      > > > will prove to be an exercise in frustration. ..as well as, a waste
      > > of
      > > > money...
      > > >
      > > > Other opinions will undoubtedly vary...
      > > >
      > > > Clear Skies...
      > > >
      > > > JR
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "doublestarguy"
      > > > <richardjepeal@ > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Toying with the idea of buying a refractor. I have looked at
      > > > Orion's
      > > > > 120mm with Sirius GoTo Mount.
      > > > >
      > > > > Question is would a 132FLT be a good fit with that mount? Mount
      > > > only
      > > > > weighs 43 lbs.
      > > > >
      > > > > Also would a Celestron CGE GoTo mount be at good fit? Or is
      > > this
      > > > > overkill, since this scope is $3,000 compared to the cheaper
      > > price
      > > > > Sirius? Does anyone know the weigh of this mount? Weight is a
      > > > > concern due to my "advancing" age.
      > > > >
      > > > > Do I need to buy any "special mounting" to attach the 132FLT to
      > > > either
      > > > > mount?
      > > > >
      > > > > I am stickly a visual observer, mainly sketching double stars,
      > > star
      > > > > cluster, planets, globulars and making variable star
      > > estimations. I
      > > > > live in a urban setting. No interest in
      > > > > galaxies and such dim smugly bodies.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you
      > > > >
      > > > > Rich
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >

    • Matt Taylor
      oops, my mistake, the large format Moonlite focuser DOES have the camera angle adjuster built in!! Matt ... From: Matt Taylor To:
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 31, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        oops, my mistake, the large format Moonlite focuser DOES have the camera angle adjuster built in!!
         
        Matt
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:35 AM
        Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: FLT 132 f/7 APO Refractor

        Hi,
         
        I noticed on CN that one FLT 132 owner already has a Moonlite focuser installed on his FLT 132, so I think Moonlite probably already has a flange to fit the scope and sending yours in would not be required. I'm considering getting a Moonlite for my FLT 132 but I hate to give up the camera angle adjuster which the Moonlite unit does not have.
         
        Matt
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:33 AM
        Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: FLT 132 f/7 APO Refractor

        Stephen;
        Many thanks for the info.....I to have problems with the focuser on the 110MM TMB...it has that jerky touch on occassion and can not retract or hold well anything over 3-4lbs. I have been playing with the tension screw adjustment on the bottom but is certainly is not as smooth  as Starlite tech. that I once had on a SCT.
        I just do not wish to alter the look of the scope and I do not like the idea of sending in the scope to Moonlite or Starlite for a fitting....you may have the same thoughts. BTW I to would give the 110MM TMB thumbs up except for the focuser which I would like to be smoother and hold the weight better!
         
         
        ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
        From: "gille6565" <gille6565@yahoo. com.au>

        Howard

        Have a look at this thread on CN, which itself links to earlier review
        threads:

        http://www.cloudyni ghts.com/ ubbthreads/ showflat. php/Cat/0/ Number/2149289/ page/0/view/ collapsed/ sb/5/o/all/ fpart/1

        Generally I would give my FLT132 10/10 for optical quality, 10/10 for
        general build quality and 8/10 for the focuser - I marked down the
        focuser because while its very good it's not quite as good as say a
        Moonlight or Feathertouch, it can slip under heavy loads and I think
        there is a bit too much play in the fine focus. I'm still
        experimenting with adjusting the focuser though so I might be able to
        get it even better.

        Stephen

        --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, lazhow@... wrote:
        >
        gt; Hi Stephen;
        > I am on the wait list for the WO FLT 132 MM scope and would really
        like to hear your thoughts and opinion on the scope. I cannot find any
        reviews and would appreciate your input.
        > Thanks
        > Howard
        > WO 110MM TMB
        > DM4
        > DSC
        > M7E---ordered
        > TSL5 Tripod---ordered
        >
        > ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
        > From: "gille6565" <gille6565@. ..>
        > This is a good option. The size and weight of refractors (OTA plus
        > mount) goes up dramatically with aperature.
        >
        > For example - my WO Megrez 90 is mounted on a camera alt-az mount and
        > I can carry the entire unit outside in one hand.
        >
        > But my FLT132 on EQ-6 can barely be lifted as one unit, and even then
        > you risk rupturing your back, and needs to be broken down into several
        > parts and assembled/dissemble d each time you use it.
        >
        > Stephen
        >
        > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, lazhow@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Rich;
        > > I did not see that you considered the FLT 110MM TMB scope. Now at a
        > a focal 770MM you can get excellent magnification but more importantly
        > wonderful resolution. No it is not a 132MM but it weighs onlt 12 lbs
        > and a mount that can handle 20lbs would work very well....think it
        > over...check reviews .... Also you now have widened you choice of
        > mount and for less cash outlay.
        > > Howard
        > > FLT 110MM TMB
        > > DM4 mount
        > > Space Commander DSC
        > >
        > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ --
        > > From: "doublestarguy" <richardjepeal@ >
        > > Thanks Jeffrey for your input. I guess weight will be the concern for
        > > I cannot use a spacebuggy. I would have to carry the tele scope down
        > > 7 back steps. Sooooo. I guess the FLT 132 is not my dream scope.
        > > Thanks again.
        > >
        > > Rich
        > >
        > > -- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "Jeffrey Rhinesmith"
        > > <jeffreyrhinesmith@ > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Rich,
        > > >
        > > > If you opt for the FLT 132, I think that the Orion Sirius EQ-G may
        > > > prove to be "significantly less" of a mount than you'll need...
        > > >
        > > > Starting with an FLT 132 at 9 kg or about 20 pounds, you'll need
        > > to
        > > > add in the weight of tube rings, a dovetail plate, a finder scope
        > > of
        > > > some sort along with its associated mounting hardware...and at
        > > least
        > > > a couple of more pounds of diagonal and eyepiece...not to mention,
        &g t; > > several pounds of counterweights to achieve balance...
        > > >
        > > > It's going to add up, real quick...
        > > >
        > > > Additively, I think that you're going to exceed the advertised 30
        > > lb
        > > > payload of the Sirius without question. Probably, the Orion Atlas
        > > EQ-
        > > > G with an advertised payload cability of 40 lbs would be "the
        > > minimum
        > > > mount" that you'd need for an FLT 132. You may be able to push
        > > the
        > > > payload limit on these Synta EQ mounts if you have a more compact
        > > OTA
        > > > like an SCT, but the significantly longer moment arms of a medium
        > > > aperture refractor are less stable when you get to the upper
        > > limit...
        > > >
        > > > I don't have any direct hands-on experience with the Celestron
        > > CGE,
        > > > o ther than a general impression from others that it's fairly
        > > stable,
        > > > robust, but comparatively over-priced for what you get. If you're
        > > > getting up to the $3000 and plus range for an EQ mount, I'd
        > > probably
        > > > look more at something like a Losmandy G-11 which carries 60 lbs
        > > and
        > > > even with the optional Gemini GO TO system, it's still in the same
        > > > ballpark at $3195.00 USD, straight retail...
        > > >
        > > > And...you could probably do considerably better than that on the
        > > used
        > > > market...
        > > >
        > > > As far as your weight concern, if you get "enough mount" to handle
        > > an
        > > > FLT 132, you're probably not going to be able to comfortably lift
        > > and
        > > > manhandle it, unless it's in pieces. JMI and few other vendors
        > > make
        > > > a number of variants of "scope buggies" which I use to avoid the
        > > wear
        > > > and tear on my back. Of course, this type of scopebuggy
        > > arrangement
        > > > usually requires you to leave it set up, so you'll have to
        > > negotiate
        > > > the new addition to the living room furniture with your
        > > significant
        > > > other...
        > > >
        > > > Good luck...:)...
        > > >
        > > > My bottom line advice is "don't under buy a mount" for any
        > > scope...it
        > > > will prove to be an exercise in frustration. ..as well as, a waste
        > > of
        > > > money...
        > > >
        > > > Other opinions will undoubtedly vary...
        > > >
        > > > Clear Skies...
        > > >
        > > > JR
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, "doublestarguy"
        > > > <richardjepeal@ > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Toying with the idea of buying a refractor. I have looked at
        > > > Orion's
        > > > > 120mm with Sirius GoTo Mount.
        > > > >
        > > > > Question is would a 132FLT be a good fit with that mount? Mount
        > > > only
        > > > > weighs 43 lbs.
        > > > >
        > > > > Also would a Celestron CGE GoTo mount be at good fit? Or is
        > > this
        > > > > overkill, since this scope is $3,000 compared to the cheaper
        > > price
        > > > > Sirius? Does anyone know the weigh of this mount? Weight is a
        > > > > concern due to my "advancing" age.
        > > > >
        > > > > Do I need to buy any "special mounting" to attach the 132FLT to
        > > > either
        > > > > mount?
        > > > >
        > > > > I am stickly a visual observer, mainly sketching double stars,
        > > star
        > > > > cluster, planets, globulars and making variable star
        > > estimations. I
        > > > > live in a urban setting. No interest in
        > > > > galaxies and such dim smugly bodies.
        > > > >
        > > > > Thank you
        > > > >
        > > > > Rich
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.