it is interesting, I had the issue that leaving theSky software sometimes get's the mount to start tracking again, which recently cause the mount to go for a few days... no damages, but resyncing

If the first requirement is capacity, you really want a bigger mount. A 400 would have maybe 1/2 the capacity of the Mach2, my guess. Rolando

Probably not. Especially if your clutches were not super tight. I left my Mach2 running all night last night, forgot to turn off power. This morning the scope was up against the pier. Nothing damaged

Hi All, It happened while I was sleeping and it was tracking on its target. I think it crashed maybe 5-10 min before I intervened. Did I do any damage? It scope is at a remote observatory 2100 miles

Why not just reissue the Mach 1? No development needed, just manufacturing capacity. All of the tooling is there. It's a much lower price point than the M2. If the manufacturing capacity is not

Very well put. And so true. My Mach1 gets heavier every year. Woody

I would love a 400 or 600 sized mount with very precise tracking! That sounds amazing. What do you think the capacity might be on something that size? David

US version https://www.scoutbook.com/mobile/references/boy-scouting/merit-badges/astronomy-merit-badge-requirements.asp Bryan

For those who are interested in making custom cases for their equipment, mycasebuilder.com is running a special. I just received an email from them that said: Happy case designing! Glenn

Titanium is hard to machine. Carbon fiber is more practical. right now we do have a lot of holes and machine away lots of internal bulk on the Mach2. The motors I chose are much heavier and larger

Point well taken Chris. I recently "loaned for as longas they needed it" my mid-power model rocket launch control systemto a local school for a project they were working on with the promise thatI

We will consider it. I am exploring some things that might work for our present mount. It would remove about 12.5 lb part from the mount head which would then be brought back together in the field

Very well said, Chris, I never thought of it, but you are right-on. Besides, an excellent scope and mount, like those from AP, will eventually pass from hand to hand – as teachers retire, or

I would love it if you made another smaller mount. Hopefully one as accurate as the Mach1. I picked up a small iOptron CEM40 as a little grab and go mount that complements my 1100. Its so light and

In that regard – AP mount’s weight ... I always wondered how much more it might cost for a Titanium , or similar lighter metal mount. QUESTAR for example put out a special “limited

YES! I would LOVE a lightweight Half-Mach to perfectly-match my Stowaway when travelling for eclipses. Use high-tech materials like titanium and/or carbon fiber to get the weight down as much as

Personally, I believe that we should... NEVER GIVE TELESCOPES TO SCHOOLS. GIVE TELESCOPES TO TEACHERS OR STUDENTS INSTEAD. If you give it to a school, it inevitably ends up being controlled by school

You ask if it would be worthwhile to split the Mach2 into two parts... For me, absolutely. The main reason that (then) I chose the Mach1 over the MyT (despite my love of the red color :)) was the 28lb

I guess it would come down to what the weight increase would be. Perhaps its an acceptable tradeoff?

As soon as you add encoders the weight goes up again. Single encoder for RA to eliminate the periodic error could be doable. But then you lose the ability to always know where the scope is pointing in