Mark - I use the AP1100 on a losmandy tripod … not the folding one but the one with fixed adjustable height legs. When I did this back in 2014 there was two adapters - the one that goes into the

Return it for the correct adapter. I bought one from telescopes.net and was sent one like you described. It was labeled AP-SM. I returned it and was sent the proper one that was threaded for the

I have contacted OPT to send me the correct part-will see what happens. David

That is definitely the wrong adapter.

Does it look like this? The red part is the AP900 adapter.

No. This is what I received from OPT when I ordered the adapter for the AP900. Do you have a part number?

Link

Is this what you have? It’s what I have, and the threaded part definitely screws into the Mach2.

OK. Now that I have been told to order the Polemaster adapter for the AP900. I did just that, except there is no way what I received will work with the Mach2. The Mach2 has a threaded connector and

That's a big 10-4 Fernando! I had a G11 and it was a nice mount; BUT, it ain't an Astro-Physics! Like night and day. tony On 3/5/2021 12:57 PM, fernandorivera3 via groups.io

Encoder mounts are no machined more sloppy than non-encoder mounts. That's a fallacy. With an encoder mount the periodic error in RA is gone, so you get true sidereal tracking rate. Non-encoder mounts

And I expect that both the 1100 and Mach2 are both machined within microns of perfection with no compromises. That's just how AP does things. Do it once, do it right. Don't have to do it

My G11 plus Gemini-II sits in a corner of my living room, holding up my first serious telescope from 50 years ago. A 10" f3.8 Newt. I won't admit how long it has been since it last gathered

I wouldn't make this sort of simplistic assumption. Short of any design differences, thinking that tolerances are somehow purposefully lesser or more when comparing any two mount models is an odd

Thanks. I'll do that early next week as it's getting late on a Friday afternoon. Keith

Thanks for the responses so far! I think I will end up going for the AP1100 instead of waiting (how long??? Daleen said at least 2 more runs) for the Mach2, even though the AP1100's capacity is

You can call the office and they will connect you to George. Rolando

Couldn’t agree more

Oh gosh, the through-mount cabling is such a great thing. I use it on my Mach1 and can imagine working without it. The Mach2 still has its version of that, but of course its requirements mean less

For me, the 1100 makes more sense. Bigger payload, splittable, more cable-through-the-mount options. And I prefer servos over steppers. "My advice is always free and worth every penny!" -Christopher