Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Bill Long

An FLI 16803 camera, CFW5-7 loaded with filters, MMOAG, along with all of the other dressing for automated imaging is going to be big, bulky, heavy and really long. Now add the 180mm refractor, and things are going to be monstrous. 

As an experiment, I went out to my imaging system that is sitting in my dining area. The scope is a A-P 130GTX, with its dew shield fully extended, field flattener, camera/wheel/oag installed, focuser racked out in focus (as it was the last time I imaged with it outside). 

I measured from the very back of the imaging train (ASI6200, wheel, OAG -- nothing compared to the FLI system suggested above) and it is 43.5" from the back of the imaging train to the front of the dew shield.

No way a 180mm refractor and that type of imaging system is coming anywhere close to 50". Far, far longer than that. 

From: <> on behalf of Terri Zittritsch <theresamarie11@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:24 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the OP is suggesting 50" and 52 pounds.  The A-P literature says the Mach2 is fine for 60 pounds at 50" of length, and assume the A-P literature isn't defining a point of failure or a point we can't use it for AP.    And granted, if I was buying a new mount specifically for a telescope, I might not pick a mount within 10-15% of its limit.   But since I own a Mach2, are you suggesting I shouldn't use it with a TEC180?  I measured 11 pounds of guidescope+camera plus filter wheel and imaging camera for my own setup.    But I'm sure with the cables, focuser controller, usb hub, etc.. it will hit 15 pounds, but much of this is at the balance point, not at the ends,  except camera and filter wheel, which should lessen the moment load.
It will be disappointing to think that the mount I've purchased is basically maxed out now.    I have been looking at a 180 size scope, in fact maybe the exact same scope as the OP.


On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 05:30 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
I do not recommend that size scope on the Mach2. The 160 is fine, the 180 is pushing things.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.