Note: groups.io will be down for maintenance on Wednesday, October 5th, starting at 9AM Pacific Time (4PM Wednesday October 5, 2022 UTC), for approximately one hour.
APM Telescope (175mm) and AP900 weight limits
I was wondering if the APM 175/1400 (6.9") refractor which weighs in at 39 pounds and 45
pounds with the tube rings and brackets will fit on my new AP900 without too much stress.
The only other additional weight would include the SBIG Camera/finder/telecompressor;
probably another 5-8 pounds. This gives a total of about 53 pounds.
I see the specs on the AP900 will carry 70 pounds but this scope isf/8 and close to 60 inches
You guessed it; I'm on the 4+ year plan for an AP scope.
Hi, there:toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I have had a TMB 175 f/8.0 "classic" (the one with the silver CNC focuser
and silver tube rings) for about two years now. It is a heavier OTA than the
new versions of this scope; I think mine weighs in at 48 lbs, including the
I first mounted it on a new AP900GTO with the 15" ribbed mounting plate
(900RPA), following the lead of a friend who has had good success with this
combination for visual use. Scope vibrations didn't damp out quickly enough
for my tastes, and I have since upgraded to the AP1200 with the 24" ribbed
mounting plate (1200RP). I am very happy with this arrangement. Damping time
is about one second now, and the long tube is much more resistant to
breezes. I think that a lot has to do with the length of the 24" mounting
plate, which spaces the tube rings nearly two feet apart, and thus
significantly reduces the lengths of the cantilevered focus and objective
If I were an imager, I don't think that there would be any question but to
go with the larger A-P mount. As Roland has said on this forum on at least
one occasion, the three most important parts to successful imaging are (1)
the mount, (2) the mount, and (3) the mount.
Hope this helps,
Redding, CT USA
On 08/17/07 3:23 PM, "r1300rs" <cardiofuse@...> wrote:
I was wondering if the APM 175/1400 (6.9") refractor which weighs in at 39
Thank you for the very useful information. I believe you are right on point regarding the
mount. I don't think that by adding 1 more inch to my normal scope will do much for CCD
imaging but the mount, clear skys and technique will make a difference. Perhaps I should
stay with the 150-160mm range. I have to stay portable with my location.
Hi,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I have a friend with an AP 180/F9 which he used to use visually on an
AP900. He was generally happy with it, except on windy nights. So he (like
Eric) also upgraded to the 1200. Of course you do sacrifice some
portability. but I would certainly agree that the 1200 is the way to go with
this scope, if you're intent on doing imaging.
On 8/18/07, r1300rs <cardiofuse@...> wrote:
Don't overlook the benefit of the wider ring spacing provided by a
longer mounting plate, even if you stay with the ~150-160MM and the
--- In ap-gto@..., "r1300rs" <cardiofuse@...> wrote:
on point regarding the
mount. I don't think that by adding 1 more inch to my normal scopewill do much for CCD
imaging but the mount, clear skys and technique will make adifference. Perhaps I should
stay with the 150-160mm range. I have to stay portable with mylocation.