Wayne, I also see your mention on the Mak groups about the use of "Super Lube".
I assume this super lube of which you speak is made (Or distributed) by the Permatex Corp., correct?

I use this lube at work (We carry it in 5lb pails. It is a clear lube, full synthetic, supposedly will not seperate, run, dry out, and is food industry acceptable, right?

I have used this grease myself to rebuild a Byers 58 mount of mine.
While is seems OK for this use (Bearings-Rollerbearings-bushings), I have noticed/observed seperation in the pails/samples I have seen, and I am unsure just how well this lube will perform next to costly optics?
(Outgassing) Mark

Hi Wayne, I myself am not entirely sure what Celestron uses, or recommends.

Perhaps the techs at Celestron can give some insight on what to use, or what properties would be desireable.

I myself have been using some of the damping greases that are made by Nye lubricants for various Astro uses (Focusers-Drawtubes-Adapter threads, and others)

This damping grease I refer to comes in various viscosities, is full synthetic, has a very good resistance to outgassing so it won't be detrimental being close to optics, and has a very good temp range of useability.

These lubes are referred to as their Nyogel 744 line, and are typically used for camera lenses, microscopes, binoculars, and other optical devices.

They do indeed make an even more sophisticated lubricant called "Nye Torr", which is suitable also for use near optics in a vacuum (Aerospace, and outer space) with an even greater latitude of temperature range. The Nyogel line though should be quite suitable.

Nye will answer any email questions that you have about their products, and what your intended uses are.

Their small quantities distributor is Tai Lubricants. Hope this helps, Mark

Does anyone know if using a perminant pier instead of the tripod for
the G11 would provide an even more stable platform.
Im considering getting a pier perminantly mounted in my back yard and
was wondering if having an 8" pier like the one in the attached url
would provide a more stable platform for my G11 with a C14.
Currently I have a C11 and would like to upgrade to a C14, but I dont
want to give up my G11 mount because i use it for other scopes also.
This would be for visual only. I have no interest in astrophotraphy.



Would an 8" pier be large enough? I dont want to bury a pole 5 feet
into the ground, so one that bolts in place would work better for me.

thanks in advance for any information. Ralph

开云体育



------
This message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses


Say, does anyone know or have a recommendation for what type grease
Celestron uses or would be good to use on the focus thimble the
primary mirror slides on?

WG

If I wanted to save a few bucks, I wouldn't be in this hobby.

RE: It's not a 'few' bucks. And also, you equate saving money with
"cutting corners." Not so.

So Im learning in this hobby,

RE: Yes, you are.

Buying from C7 is like an insurance policy. I dont mind paying for
security and peace of mind.

Ive also been talking to Marty, surprisingly, he told me marginal gear
is sent back....period!

I dont mind paying extra for peace of mind. Its not that big of a deal
to me. A Big C14 on an HGM mount is over 10k anyway.

If I wanted to save a few bucks, I wouldn't be in this hobby. I
finally sold all my chineese refractors and bought a 4" APO a while
back. So Im learning in this hobby, quality costs...and you get what
you pay for more often than not.

but thanks for your comments. Everyones experiences are valuable to
hear about.

..nina





--- In C14@y..., "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...> wrote:

Well, I guess I think different than you. I spoke with Marty, etc.,

at C7

many times before choosing to purchase elsewhere. This is not what

I was

told. I do not know what you mean by "even marginal gear to slip

through

the cracks." Celestron does not screen telescopes for anyone. You

get what

you get. Unless there is a demonstratable flaw or defect which

seriously

affects the quality of the scope, C7 cannot be "nit-picking" over

personal

travails. Figure quality various from unit to unit, albeit usually
slightly. Occasionally there is the exceptional optical figure.

However,

C7 told be they cannot gaurantee you'll get one. Only one that

checks out

as OK. You won't get one with a serious turned edge or serious
undercorrection. But my point was that you can determine that for

youself

and save HUNDREDS of dollars ($500?).

If any dealer was constantly returning units for every little flaw,

C would

cut them off! If they are not, it is because the vast majority of

scopes

pass with flying colors. Ask an impartial source, not a dealer, if

you

don't believe me.

As far as shipping a C14 back, I sent mine back last year. It was

six

months old. Whether you ship to C or your dealer, you are gonna pay

to

ship. I chose to ship from Pennsylvania directly back to C via

FedEx 2 day

air. It cost me $185.00. This was one of the most costly ways to

ship.

Even so, I still saved hundreds of dollars over C7. Even if I had

bought

from them, I still would have had to pay this shipping. So, whats

your

point?

C7 is a fine company, but I do not pay a premium for something when

I don't

have to. Buy from them if you feel you need to, or if it makes you

feel

better about your purchase or gives you a sense of prestige in

saying your

unit came from them. Personally, I was turned off by their policy

that they

would not sell to me unless I had bought from them before! I was

shocked

that they said that to me, and it doesn't make sense. I have heard

others

say this as well. It was like they were doing me a favor by dealing

with

me. I didn't like that attitude. It was like: "My way or the

highway!"

I'm sorry, they are the ones who need my money, not the other way

around!

Further you imply that just because you buy from someone like C7 is

going to

assure you of not having a problem and incur shipping expenses down

the

line. Not so. My problem developed months after receiving the

scope.

Buying from C7 would not have prevented it. I sent it back and C

fixed it.

Six months later the problem returned again. I learned. It's sad

when you

realize that your telescope is in better hands with you than with

the

manufacturer. Celestron screwed up and bungled their way through my

entire

repair. They botched phone calls, instructions, paperwork. They

even sent

it back severely out of alignment. They shipped by semi, that took

2 WEEKS

to get here, via NJ first. I had a 40 foot tractor trailer pull up

in front

of my house. I couldn't track the shipment and didn't know it was

going to

be delivered until the day before. Then, C shipped it to the wrong

address!

I would never ship my scope back to them again. I am taking it

apart and

fixing the problem myself, even though it is still probably under

warranty.

When its done, it will be BETTER THAN NEW. Believe me, if you want

it done

right the first time, do it yourself. But you and I differ. Where

you would

rather pay heavily just to reduce the chances of dealing with an

issue that

hasn't even occured yet, I would rather save money and shop smart in

a way

that I think will get me good results anyway. And if something

develops

into a problem later, I choose to be able to take care of it myself,

and if

I don't know how, then LEARN! That way, I'm now the better for it,

and am

even more self-sufficient than before! I guess I'm just not a good
comsumer! ;-)

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:57:56 -0000
From: "nina_naiad" <nina_naiad@y...>
Subject: Re: Dew and other incendiary OTA questions (aka: digest

#75)

Just a quick note, I recently bought something from company 7.

They

wont allow even marginal gear to slip thru the cracks.
All you have to do is buy something questionable from someone

other

than Company 7 and the cost you will pay to send the optical tube

back

and fourth will be close to the cost of getting it right the first
time from Company 7.
No one in their right mind would send something as delicate as a
Big Optical instrument using ground UPS, so shipping is going to

cost

to do it right!

Well, I guess I think different than you. I spoke with Marty, etc., at C7
many times before choosing to purchase elsewhere. This is not what I was
told. I do not know what you mean by "even marginal gear to slip through
the cracks." Celestron does not screen telescopes for anyone. You get what
you get. Unless there is a demonstratable flaw or defect which seriously
affects the quality of the scope, C7 cannot be "nit-picking" over personal
travails. Figure quality various from unit to unit, albeit usually
slightly. Occasionally there is the exceptional optical figure. However,
C7 told be they cannot gaurantee you'll get one. Only one that checks out
as OK. You won't get one with a serious turned edge or serious
undercorrection. But my point was that you can determine that for youself
and save HUNDREDS of dollars ($500?).

If any dealer was constantly returning units for every little flaw, C would
cut them off! If they are not, it is because the vast majority of scopes
pass with flying colors. Ask an impartial source, not a dealer, if you
don't believe me.

As far as shipping a C14 back, I sent mine back last year. It was six
months old. Whether you ship to C or your dealer, you are gonna pay to
ship. I chose to ship from Pennsylvania directly back to C via FedEx 2 day
air. It cost me $185.00. This was one of the most costly ways to ship.
Even so, I still saved hundreds of dollars over C7. Even if I had bought
from them, I still would have had to pay this shipping. So, whats your
point?

C7 is a fine company, but I do not pay a premium for something when I don't
have to. Buy from them if you feel you need to, or if it makes you feel
better about your purchase or gives you a sense of prestige in saying your
unit came from them. Personally, I was turned off by their policy that they
would not sell to me unless I had bought from them before! I was shocked
that they said that to me, and it doesn't make sense. I have heard others
say this as well. It was like they were doing me a favor by dealing with
me. I didn't like that attitude. It was like: "My way or the highway!"
I'm sorry, they are the ones who need my money, not the other way around!

Further you imply that just because you buy from someone like C7 is going to
assure you of not having a problem and incur shipping expenses down the
line. Not so. My problem developed months after receiving the scope.
Buying from C7 would not have prevented it. I sent it back and C fixed it.
Six months later the problem returned again. I learned. It's sad when you
realize that your telescope is in better hands with you than with the
manufacturer. Celestron screwed up and bungled their way through my entire
repair. They botched phone calls, instructions, paperwork. They even sent
it back severely out of alignment. They shipped by semi, that took 2 WEEKS
to get here, via NJ first. I had a 40 foot tractor trailer pull up in front
of my house. I couldn't track the shipment and didn't know it was going to
be delivered until the day before. Then, C shipped it to the wrong address!

I would never ship my scope back to them again. I am taking it apart and
fixing the problem myself, even though it is still probably under warranty.
When its done, it will be BETTER THAN NEW. Believe me, if you want it done
right the first time, do it yourself. But you and I differ. Where you would
rather pay heavily just to reduce the chances of dealing with an issue that
hasn't even occured yet, I would rather save money and shop smart in a way
that I think will get me good results anyway. And if something develops
into a problem later, I choose to be able to take care of it myself, and if
I don't know how, then LEARN! That way, I'm now the better for it, and am
even more self-sufficient than before! I guess I'm just not a good
comsumer! ;-)

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

This sounds great! I was considering purchasing a C14 optical tube for
visual use only. Ive never had an interest in astrophotography and
specifically, the C14 would be for visual use either on my patio in my
back yard or at the dark skys of my star party location.
I would just have a telrad attached to the optical tube, in addition
to my 2" diagonal and nagler eyepieces.
Is the Optical tube really 50 lbs or 45, as I have read in some
literature?
Thanks again for your help.

Id like to also hear from other C14 owners using a G11 mount!

,Ralph

--- In C14@y..., "kberna1376" <kberna1376@a...> wrote:

Hi Ralph. I have used the C14 with the G11 for two years. I think
the G11 is really excellent, but it is pushing the limit. It is
really good for visual use. Damping times are very short, and
tracking after alignment with the polar scope is excellent.

However,

it is not good for CCD imaging. I have done some (see Ken's pix in
the files area) in Fastar mode, and with a 3.3 reducer. I generally
stack 30 second exposures which works OK. Exposures at longer focal
lengths or longer than 30 seconds are almost impossible. Of course

I

use the scope in the open with no protection from the breezes. If

it

were used in an observatory it might be OK.

Ken

--- In C14@y..., "aa6ww" <aa6ww@y...> wrote:

I currently own a CG-11 with an immaculate G11 mount. I have been
getting some aperature fever and have been considering selling my

C11

OTA and purchasing a new C14 OTA.
Can anyone tell me if the c14 OTA would be pushing the limits on

the

G11? I'll mount a Telrad on top with 2" nagler eyepieces and
2" diagonal off the back.
How much more shake or vibration would I see. I currently have no
noticible vibration what so ever and my scope seems increadly

sharp

and solid.
Finally, can someone tell me the dementions of the trunk the C14

OTA

comes in, since storage is always an issue.
Would buying the OTA from Anacortes or similar places be ok or is

it

wise to go thru company 7 and let them fully test out the OTA

first

hand?

Thanks in advance for any help, Ralph

Just a quick note, I recently bought something from company 7. They
wont allow even marginal gear to slip thru the cracks.
All you have to do is buy something questionable from someone other
than Company 7 and the cost you will pay to send the optical tube back
and fourth will be close to the cost of getting it right the first
time from Company 7.
No one in their right mind would send something as delicate as a
Big Optical instrument using ground UPS, so shipping is going to cost
to do it right!
Im thinking on buying my friends CG-11. I think they are an
increadible instrument for deep space and planetary performance.



--- In C14@y..., "W. Gondella" <gondella@s...> wrote:

To control dew on the C14, get a custom Insulated Dewshield from

Richard

Just at ricvic@d... . Also, a dew zapper helps, otherwise.
Richard can make a dewshield to fit your exact needs (mount etc.).

The

shield covers the entire tube and extends out front. They are the

only ones

that work. Kendricks doesn't cut it on a 14" piece of glass, and if

it did,

it would take so much current and cause so much thermal convection

so as to

drain even the largest battery and ruin your seeing.

Yes, A G-11 is stretched in supporting a C14 but it is a better

choice than

the CI-700 mount (I have used both). There will be some vibration

and

shake, but it is acceptable for visual use. Not so for imaging,

where only

the best mounts prove adequate. However the gain in performance

over a C-11

is well worth a little extra vibration.

The place to buy the C14 from is ASTRONOMICS. You wanna spend more?

Buy

from someone else. No one, not even C7 guarantees a superior scope.

All C7

does is check for obvioous flaws and obvious substandard quality

(rare in a

C14). You can do that yourself for free. A good dealer will allow
return/exchange within about 30 days or so if such a serious problem

is

found. If you cannot detect an obvious mechanical or optical flaw

in a

telescope, then maybe you shouldn't be buying a $4,000 SCT! There

is also a

1-year warrenty. Also, if you cannot detect such problems yourself,

then

why worry or spend the extra money? Whether you have a problem or

not, you

won't know the difference! Of course, if you are really insecure or

just

like buying very expensive tools which you know nothing about and /

or

aren't sure if you really want one but sorta think you might like to

try one

and then find out it was really a mistake after all and sell it for

a loss

to someone else, then by all means spend hundreds of extra dollars

on it and

have a more knowledgable person profit from your ignorance! I can

only tell

you that C7 and others like them take what they get from the

factory, there

is no hand-picking. It only goes back if its a real lemon, and I

would hope

you can tell a good scope from a real lemon yourself if you got the

bread to

spend and want something like a 14" SCT!

In getting a 14" OTA, look for cosmetic blems (1). I had a few

(scuff?)

marks on my tube, but I bought the scope to look through, not at,

and they

are not that noticable. In the dark, their not seen at all. (2)

Look at

the window and interior. It should be clean. (3). The focus

should be

smooth and even, without a lot of slop and play. Image shift should

be

minor, even at higher power. (4) [after collimation] Looking at a

bright

star overhead in the center of the field at very high power under

good

seeing, the out of focus image should be: (a): symetrical on both

sides of

focus, (b) identical in the distribution of energy in the

diffraction rings

on both sides of focus. There should be a brighter inner ring next

to the

shadow of the secondary, a couple of thin middle rings, and then a

brighter

outer ring similar in thickness and intensity to the inner ring.

And yes,

if you rack out further, you will see a tiny white "dot" of light in

the

middle of the secondary shadow. That's normal too. It's a function

of the

wave nature (addition and cancellation of phase energies) of light.

Don't

worry about it. The diffraction rings should be smoothly and evenly

lit

(under good seeing). (5) You will have some astigmatism and coma at

low

powers unless you use the corrector/flattener (buy with scope).

This is

really an f/2 telescope, don't forget, and an ecconomical one for

what you

are getting.

If you want a perfect scope, you can spend $12,000 for an 11-inch
Richey-Chretien from OGS.

Relax and enjoy your immensely powerful scope you bought for only 4G

(a mere

pittance in today's economy).

If there's anything here that confused you, don't worry. There are

many

good books on telescope design and theory. The best are Amatuer

Astronomers

Handbook, Telescope Optics by Rutten and van Venrooij, and Suiters

Star

Testing. Support your country and help your economy: BUY BOOKS.

READ

BOOKS. You will love learning !!

Hope this helps out.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

To control dew on the C14, get a custom Insulated Dewshield from Richard
Just at ricvic@... . Also, a dew zapper helps, otherwise.
Richard can make a dewshield to fit your exact needs (mount etc.). The
shield covers the entire tube and extends out front. They are the only ones
that work. Kendricks doesn't cut it on a 14" piece of glass, and if it did,
it would take so much current and cause so much thermal convection so as to
drain even the largest battery and ruin your seeing.

Yes, A G-11 is stretched in supporting a C14 but it is a better choice than
the CI-700 mount (I have used both). There will be some vibration and
shake, but it is acceptable for visual use. Not so for imaging, where only
the best mounts prove adequate. However the gain in performance over a C-11
is well worth a little extra vibration.

The place to buy the C14 from is ASTRONOMICS. You wanna spend more? Buy
from someone else. No one, not even C7 guarantees a superior scope. All C7
does is check for obvioous flaws and obvious substandard quality (rare in a
C14). You can do that yourself for free. A good dealer will allow
return/exchange within about 30 days or so if such a serious problem is
found. If you cannot detect an obvious mechanical or optical flaw in a
telescope, then maybe you shouldn't be buying a $4,000 SCT! There is also a
1-year warrenty. Also, if you cannot detect such problems yourself, then
why worry or spend the extra money? Whether you have a problem or not, you
won't know the difference! Of course, if you are really insecure or just
like buying very expensive tools which you know nothing about and / or
aren't sure if you really want one but sorta think you might like to try one
and then find out it was really a mistake after all and sell it for a loss
to someone else, then by all means spend hundreds of extra dollars on it and
have a more knowledgable person profit from your ignorance! I can only tell
you that C7 and others like them take what they get from the factory, there
is no hand-picking. It only goes back if its a real lemon, and I would hope
you can tell a good scope from a real lemon yourself if you got the bread to
spend and want something like a 14" SCT!

In getting a 14" OTA, look for cosmetic blems (1). I had a few (scuff?)
marks on my tube, but I bought the scope to look through, not at, and they
are not that noticable. In the dark, their not seen at all. (2) Look at
the window and interior. It should be clean. (3). The focus should be
smooth and even, without a lot of slop and play. Image shift should be
minor, even at higher power. (4) [after collimation] Looking at a bright
star overhead in the center of the field at very high power under good
seeing, the out of focus image should be: (a): symetrical on both sides of
focus, (b) identical in the distribution of energy in the diffraction rings
on both sides of focus. There should be a brighter inner ring next to the
shadow of the secondary, a couple of thin middle rings, and then a brighter
outer ring similar in thickness and intensity to the inner ring. And yes,
if you rack out further, you will see a tiny white "dot" of light in the
middle of the secondary shadow. That's normal too. It's a function of the
wave nature (addition and cancellation of phase energies) of light. Don't
worry about it. The diffraction rings should be smoothly and evenly lit
(under good seeing). (5) You will have some astigmatism and coma at low
powers unless you use the corrector/flattener (buy with scope). This is
really an f/2 telescope, don't forget, and an ecconomical one for what you
are getting.

If you want a perfect scope, you can spend $12,000 for an 11-inch
Richey-Chretien from OGS.

Relax and enjoy your immensely powerful scope you bought for only 4G (a mere
pittance in today's economy).

If there's anything here that confused you, don't worry. There are many
good books on telescope design and theory. The best are Amatuer Astronomers
Handbook, Telescope Optics by Rutten and van Venrooij, and Suiters Star
Testing. Support your country and help your economy: BUY BOOKS. READ
BOOKS. You will love learning !!

Hope this helps out.

Wayne E. Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Hi Ralph. I have used the C14 with the G11 for two years. I think
the G11 is really excellent, but it is pushing the limit. It is
really good for visual use. Damping times are very short, and
tracking after alignment with the polar scope is excellent. However,
it is not good for CCD imaging. I have done some (see Ken's pix in
the files area) in Fastar mode, and with a 3.3 reducer. I generally
stack 30 second exposures which works OK. Exposures at longer focal
lengths or longer than 30 seconds are almost impossible. Of course I
use the scope in the open with no protection from the breezes. If it
were used in an observatory it might be OK.

Ken

--- In C14@y..., "aa6ww" <aa6ww@y...> wrote:

I currently own a CG-11 with an immaculate G11 mount. I have been
getting some aperature fever and have been considering selling my

C11

OTA and purchasing a new C14 OTA.
Can anyone tell me if the c14 OTA would be pushing the limits on

the

G11? I'll mount a Telrad on top with 2" nagler eyepieces and
2" diagonal off the back.
How much more shake or vibration would I see. I currently have no
noticible vibration what so ever and my scope seems increadly sharp
and solid.
Finally, can someone tell me the dementions of the trunk the C14

OTA

comes in, since storage is always an issue.
Would buying the OTA from Anacortes or similar places be ok or is

it

wise to go thru company 7 and let them fully test out the OTA first
hand?

Thanks in advance for any help, Ralph

开云体育

Good evening Ralph:

I can only answer the question regarding the trunk as I have the CI-700
mount and did not purchase my C-14 from Anacortes. The trunk has dimensions
of 36" x 20" x 22" (l x w x h).

Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@...

From: "aa6ww" <aa6ww@...>

Hello Ralph,

I have a CM1400...the storage case is approximately 36 x 22 x 22
inches, considering the latches. For my two cents worth, I've heard
you'd be pushing the envelope by placing a C14 on a G11. I have the
CI700 mount and am having it retrofitted for better performance.
Others have mentioned that the C14 works best with a quality
mounting such as an AP1200, GM200, Paramount, and the like. However,
some of us (myself included) simply can't afford to buy one.

Vibration could be an issue for open field use dependng on
atmospheric conditions, A.K.A. wind (I have my CI700 in an
observatory).

I've bought a few scopes from Astronomics, with a few returns due to
factory defects. I think I read here or elso where that Celestron
doesn't sell as many C14's as their other models, which means they
take more time and care in their construction, resulting in higher
quality going out the door from the get go for the C14's. I can say
that the C14 I bought new from Astronomics was, and still is a
superior OTA. They'll have to pry my C14 from my cold dead hands!

If it cost more money to have a reseller "check - out" the scope
before buying it, I'd pass on it....that's what OEM customer service
is for.
John


--- In C14@y..., "aa6ww" <aa6ww@y...> wrote:

I currently own a CG-11 with an immaculate G11 mount. I have been
getting some aperature fever and have been considering selling my

C11

OTA and purchasing a new C14 OTA.
Can anyone tell me if the c14 OTA would be pushing the limits on

the

G11? I'll mount a Telrad on top with 2" nagler eyepieces and
2" diagonal off the back.
How much more shake or vibration would I see. I currently have no
noticible vibration what so ever and my scope seems increadly

sharp

and solid.
Finally, can someone tell me the dementions of the trunk the C14

OTA

comes in, since storage is always an issue.
Would buying the OTA from Anacortes or similar places be ok or is

it

wise to go thru company 7 and let them fully test out the OTA

first

hand?

Thanks in advance for any help, Ralph

I currently own a CG-11 with an immaculate G11 mount. I have been
getting some aperature fever and have been considering selling my C11
OTA and purchasing a new C14 OTA.
Can anyone tell me if the c14 OTA would be pushing the limits on the
G11? I'll mount a Telrad on top with 2" nagler eyepieces and
2" diagonal off the back.
How much more shake or vibration would I see. I currently have no
noticible vibration what so ever and my scope seems increadly sharp
and solid.
Finally, can someone tell me the dementions of the trunk the C14 OTA
comes in, since storage is always an issue.
Would buying the OTA from Anacortes or similar places be ok or is it
wise to go thru company 7 and let them fully test out the OTA first
hand?

Thanks in advance for any help, Ralph

开云体育

Good Morning:

A wonderful night of viewing last night with the C-14 was spoiled by
dew on the corrector plate, in spite of having a dew shield on the
OTA. I have the Kendrick dew heater for the C-14 but have not found
that to be particularly effective either.

I am interested in hearing your ideas on how to prevent this most
frustrating problem.

Clear skies,
Kevin Dixon
ksbtk@...

Dear Johannes,

Get the C14 and don't look back. It has nearly double the light grasp of
the C11. The C14 is produced in much smaller numbers and tends to get more
care and attention than its smaller siblings. Even in polluted areas near
cities, DS objects can be clearly seen. Recently with an almost full moon
high overhead, I was finding M-galaxies in Leo, just by panning around. M66
had wisps of structure even though it was low and the poor conditions (I
also live in the suburbs with 4th mag skies on good nights).

On a moonless night in a similar location, M13 looks almost like the
pictures, with thousands of stars seen with direct vision. The planets are
superb on clear nights. Bad seeing? You can still stop the 14 down to
off-axis 5 inch telescope. With your mount, the C14 f.l. is no problem for
visual or ccd, at f/11 or at f/7. Plus there is the wonderful fastar
configuration. The C14 gives more image scale better for images of
galaxies, planetaries and globulars, etc., but can be changed to f/7 with
much wider field, or even f/2.1, unlike the C11. Photographic speed is the
same for both scopes, basically, so the C14 gives brighter images and
shorter exposures.

Affects on seeing are similar, so the C14 will reward with its extra
brightness and detail. 300 power is nothing for the C14. On the planets,
views are still bright at 600-700 power. I've never had a dim view with the
C14. The C14 comes with a nice storage / transportation case. Once you get
it and see it, you will be glad you bought it. The OTA weighs about 45
pounds. It is easy to carry by the two back handles.

I too use the C14 on an HGM-200. It is a great combination. The G-11 and
CI-700 are only good for casual, limited use, and greatly restrict the
functionality of the scope. I load the C14 and HGM200 in my truck (I have
cases for all) routinely for field use, and it is a real show stopper. With
a Collins I3Piece, it gives views similar to a 38 inch scope. I am 45. The
C14 shows what the C11 only hints at. I love it. Hope this helps.

Wayne Gondella
AFA Engineering Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 10:55:58 -0000
From: "belonide" <huwe@...>
Subject: Buy a C14 or C11?

I plan to buy a bigger telescope, but I am not sure if C11 or C14.

I observe from an 500.000 resident city, own a 7" Maksutov-SC,
Losmandy HGM 200 Mount and I want to see visuel more than only
nebulare (whatever if galaxy or star-cluster) for all Deep-Sky
objects.

My second goal is to make CCD-pictures.

I thing for CCD-photography the C11 could be more easy due to the
shorter focal length.

It would be nice if someone can describe what to see with the C14 oder
C11. Is it possible for example to see textures from galaxys? Because
I only know the nice colored ccd pictures, but I never looked
through a C14 or read something about a visuel impression with the
C14.

And how big are the seeing problems with the C14? In germany its very
cloudy and I dont what to have only a few nights for observing in the
year.

Thank you very much for all information.
Johannes