Posts Made By: John MacDonough

Well, I took the plunge and purchased the Park 10" HIT from another Astromarter. Thanks to everyone that answered my call for information. After receiving all the parts that make up the scope, I ordered Parallax rings and a Losmandy dovetail bar, assembled it, collimated it, installed it in the rings and put it on my bigger mount (way too big for my smaller mount).

The short version is, I think this scope has high "cool factor". And good optics.

I've been a long focus observer for a long time, my C-11 is the fastest scope I regularly observe with. Since getting the Parks scope collimated in Newtonian configuration was the simplest thing to do, that's how I observed first. The wide field, and sometimes visible shadow from the secondary mirror, were new experiences for me. And a lot of fun. Even at f/4 I didn't notice objectionable coma with Plossls. A harsher test will come in a couple of weeks now that I have a focuser that will accept 2" eye pieces. The stars were pin point, the field wide and the back ground black. The view of M42 made me wish it was still December so I could see it again.

Thus far I've only been able to do a fair job of collimating the Cassegrain secondary. Globular clusters look really good at f/15, but the scope's performance on planets so far hasn't been that good. Of course, we haven't had a night of really good seeing on the 3rd Coast in a long time.

If you've read this thread, you've seen Mr. Mollise's comments. Here are my responses: optical quality is very satisfying for this example. If Parks' quality was hit-or-miss, this example is a hit. I, too, have recently looked at the Parks website and the mounts are antique. The old list prices are too high, but the prices they are currently advertising might be reasonable if their quality is consistently good. The scope is indeed much heavier than it needs to be. The 10" mirror is 2" thick so it weighs a ton. There is a lot of metal in the primary cell and back plate. Even the famous Parks tube is really heavy, but then most people already know that. The stock rack-and-pinion focusers aren't very good, serviceable, but I've changed them out. I'll report the actual weight when I'm finished with the work I'm doing.

Yes, I know, it's been almost a whole year, but a lot of non-astronomy stuff has happened. I finally did finish the Cassegrain this past weekend. Images of the moon at 200x are spectacular. They were good even at 380x despite the average or below average seeing. Assembly was much more difficult than I thought it would be, but collimation was much simpler than I made it. The scope isn't as light-weight as I'd hoped, but because of that I got to get a new mount. It is fairly compact (as compared to my refractor) and easy to mount. The views are great. I've learned enough that I may try this again (help me, I must be insane).

Ron,

I ordered a Protostar secondary holder/ spider a couple of years ago. The good news is it did arrive and is a cool piece of gear. The bad news is it took several weeks to finally ship. I was quoted about a month and I think it took more than two, perhaps three months. My guess is it takes them a while to build things if they aren't already in stock.

Alexander,

Ask the seller if the existing saddle can be unbolted from the mount. If so, then a new plate can be easily made to fit the bolt pattern of the mount as well as whatever rings you choose to use to mount the C14. Homeyer cradles are nice as are Parallax rings. Either company may be willing to fabricate the mounting plate to your specifications, too.

Yihan,

I have not owned a Mewlon, so I could only guess at the effects of turning a collimation screw, just like you are guessing. My suggestion is to enlist the help of a friend to adjust the collimation screws while you look at a defocused star through the eye piece. That way you could see the effect of each adjustment as it is being made. You'll want to warn your friend to make tiny adjustments, and to make them slowly, obviously.

John,

I have a scope that is about the same size as yours, but weighs quite a bit more (that old-school construction, you know). I use a Losmandy G-11 for visual-only observing and it's fine, when it's carefully balanced. However, take seriously those that are cautioning you about moment arms and off-center loads. I'm sure my G-11 would handle a 60 lb scope really well if it were 4 3/4" in diameter and 12" long. However, if I don't balance my actual scope very carefully, then I can hear motors whining (and sometimes stalling) while the scope is moving, and it gets the shakes. Even changing from heavy eye pieces to light eye pieces can cause a motor stall at times.

Billy,

When I travel, I generally take my Parks 10" hybrid. I don't set it up at home very often because it requires my "big" mount, a G-11. That mount takes a long time to assemble and set-up for viewing. I'd love to be able to leave it assembled on rollers in the garage, but can't at this time.

So, I have my "quick" scope. It's not exactly grab-and-go, but... I have a home made 200mm classical Cassegrain that I mount on an Orion Sirius mount. The mount does stay set-up in the garage. I can carry it assembled into the drive way, mount the scope and plug in the battery in about ten minutes.

For me, it's not the size of the gear that makes it useable or not, it's how much of it that can be left assembled and set up. If I was able to build an observatory in my back yard, whatever scope was mounted there would get used, at least for a few minutes, every clear night. If I had a wife who could flick her pony-tail like Jeannie/ Barbara Eden, then I wouldn't need an observatory.

I'd make a comment about this, but we're not supposed to talk about politics in these forums. Thank goodness for that rule.

Steve,

I agree with John, I'd only upgrade if you're unsatisfied with the performance of the focuser you have. That said, I'm a big fan of Moonlite and have three myself. Unless you're going to use only light 1 1/4" eye pieces, do get the fine focus option, as they will recommend.

Refractor focusers are expensive, so you should also consider Feather Touch if you're set on an upgrade. I also have an AP 2.7" focuser on my refractor. It's nice, too. I think it can be had for less that a Feather Touch.

John,

I hardly ever get to use 300x in any of my scopes due to sky conditions. That said, I do keep one eye piece for each of my scopes that gives +/- 300x, just in case the sky is exceptional some night. None of my short focal length eye pieces is an Ethos, though. It wouldn't get used enough for me to justify the cost.