Re: [APML] M42 at 300mm on new EQ6 mount

["Alson Wong" <alsonwong@earthlink.net>]

I had an 8" LX50 but sold it, because it was cumbersome to polar align, as
you say.  Counterbalancing the fork mount was also a pain, as balancing the
scope in one axis threw it out of balance in the other.  I replaced it with
a C-9.25 and mounted it on a G-11.  I found the C-11 a little bulky for me
to easily set up, but I'm also not a big guy, either (5' 4", 130 lbs.).  An
average-sized person probably wouldn't have much trouble with one.
--
Alson Wong
Riverside Astronomical Society
     http://www.rivastro.org/
Visit my Web page at:
     http://home.earthlink.net/~alsonwong/index.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuele Sordini" <vega@ulisse.it>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [APML] M42 at 300mm on new EQ6 mount


> I have an 8" LX-50 Meade SCT: optics are fair, but mechanics and
> electronics stink. I thought of dumping the LX 50 to buy a German
> Equatorial Mount and an SCT OTA of the same size. But I also used a 12"
> LX200, and while I agree polar alignment is a pain in the @#$, it's got
> some nice bells and whistles (PEC, GoTo, internal object database, etc)
> which might come in handy.



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>