Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?


lmbrabec@...
 

Curious if anyone has used the AP 13035FF with a TEC140FL?  Thanks!  Scott


Roland Christen
 

You probably could, but the spacing would be different. I would need to run the design to see what spacing would be best.

Roland

-----Original Message-----
From: lmbrabec@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Dec 28, 2021 1:38 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?

Curious if anyone has used the AP 13035FF with a TEC140FL?  Thanks!  Scott

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Bill Long
 

I know people that used it with the ED version of the TEC140. I believe they used the same spacing called out for the Quad TCC and the TEC140 with good results.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 11:42 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?
 
You probably could, but the spacing would be different. I would need to run the design to see what spacing would be best.

Roland

-----Original Message-----
From: lmbrabec@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Dec 28, 2021 1:38 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?

Curious if anyone has used the AP 13035FF with a TEC140FL?  Thanks!  Scott

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


lmbrabec@...
 

Wow that would be fantastic!  I already have the QTCC and connection pieces to the focuser and would love to stay with AP Field Flattener if it would give good results. I'm using a QHY268M (APS-C) with 3.67 um pixel (similar to the full frame ASI6200 or QHY600).  Should I wait to hear back from you Roland?  All the best, Scott


Dean Jacobsen
 

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:42 AM, Roland Christen wrote:
You probably could, but the spacing would be different. I would need to run the design to see what spacing would be best.
 
Roland
I would be interested in hearing about this too.  I do plan on picking up the QTCC for an anticipated new TEC140FL in the coming year.  It would be nice to have the option of picking up a field flattener as well.
 
--
Dean Jacobsen
Astrobin Image Gallery - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/


Roland Christen
 

I have calculated the spacing required for the 140 TEC using the AP 130 Field Flattener, #13035FF. The distance would be 96.5mm measured from the back of the main flattener body flange without the back focus extension. We normally sell this flattener with the 22.1mm extension piece for the 130GTX scopes, so you would remove this if you want to use the full back spacing.

If you wanted to achieve the 80.8mm Canon camera spacing you would need to add 15.7mm back focus spacer. The closest we have is the 16mm spacer, which would work just hunky dory for the 140 TEC/Canon camera combo.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: lmbrabec@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Dec 28, 2021 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?

Wow that would be fantastic!  I already have the QTCC and connection pieces to the focuser and would love to stay with AP Field Flattener if it would give good results. I'm using a QHY268M (APS-C) with 3.67 um pixel (similar to the full frame ASI6200 or QHY600).  Should I wait to hear back from you Roland?  All the best, Scott

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


lmbrabec@...
 

Thanks so much Roland for the calculation!  I just put a 13035FF on order along with the 16mm spacer.  Thanks again!  Scott


Peter Nagy
 

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:30 AM, Roland Christen wrote:
I have calculated the spacing required for the 140 TEC using the AP 130 Field Flattener, #13035FF. The distance would be 96.5mm measured from the back of the main flattener body flange without the back focus extension.
If you think 130355FF would work with TEC 160FL, I would appreciate if you could calculate the back focus for this setup as well. Also would it fill a full frame camera like ASI6200MM or QHY600M? 
 
Thank you and Happy New Year!!!!
 
Peter


Greg Vaughn
 

Peter,

 

Thanks for asking this question.  I was going to ask the same thing.   The TEC field flattener seems to have insufficient back focus for me to insert an off axis guider with the TEC160.  It would be awesome to be able to use the AP field flattener that I have for the 130 EDFGT (outfitted with the GTX focuser) with the TEC 160 and take advantage of the already sorted image train that I use on the 130 with the 13035FF.

 

Roland,

 

This calculation for use of the 13035 FF with the TEC 160  would be most appreciated, if it’s possible to use it with the TEC 160.   I’ve been extremely pleased with the performance of the 13035FF with the 130!

 

Happy New Year to All!!

 

Cheers,

Greg

 

Greg Vaughn

Alexandria, VA


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Peter Nagy
 

Greg,

Notice that A-P back focus specification includes about 18mm to 20mm threaded flange of the flattener. For example, if the back focus is 100mm, then the effective optical back focus (where you include OAG, filter wheel, etc.) is 80mm to 82mm which is not much longer than TEC FF for TEC 160FL (78mm).

https://www.astro-physics.info/tech_support/accessories/photo_acc/13035ff-spacing.pdf

Peter


Peter Nagy
 

I think I made a mistake. My QuadTCC threaded flange is about 10mm so I assume 13035FF is probably the same length.

Peter


Peter Nagy
 

According to Preciseparts.com, the minimum spacer distance for 13035FF is 21.3mm. In my case was to connect FF to QHY filter wheel using M54 threads.

Peter


Bill Long
 

The minimum space PP adapter for the FF and Quad TCC are not the same, if you are bypassing the AP spacer that comes on them. The FF has a little extra space on the end of the thread that the adapter has to account for. This extra space isn't present on the Quad TCC. You'll notice this if you look at the minimum spacing for each on the PP site.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Peter Nagy <topboxman@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 12:16 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?
 
According to Preciseparts.com, the minimum spacer distance for 13035FF is 21.3mm. In my case was to connect FF to QHY filter wheel using M54 threads.

Peter


Peter Nagy
 

I know they are not the same. P-P minimum distance for QuadTCC is 18.2mm.

Peter


Bill Long
 

Yeah that is something for owners of the Quad TCC to keep in mind. If they have the 18.2mm min spaced adapter it will have a small gap when threaded onto the direct threads of the flattener.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Peter Nagy <topboxman@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 1:23 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?
 
I know they are not the same. P-P minimum distance for QuadTCC is 18.2mm.

Peter


Greg Vaughn
 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for the reply and the link.

 

It’s been a couple months since I’ve done the math and went to the PP website to build the adapter, but it may be in the nature of the connection to the TEC 160 FF which is the limiting item.   You may already be familiar with it, but the TEC FF connection is very similar (if not identical) to the AP field flattener I use for the AP 105 Traveler.   When I did the math, the PP adapter length I calculated that I needed was less than the minimum adapter length allowed for the connection method involved.

 

I have 16, 17, and 22.1mm spacers in addition to a set of 1mm spacers – all from AP.   Was hoping that some combination of these would work for the 13035FF on the TEC 160FL.

 

Happy 2 January!

 

Cheers,

Greg

 

p.s.  I get the grouped ‘AP and AP-GTO’ group emails, so apologize for any lag time.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Roland Christen
 

I checked this flattener on my design program. The 130 AP field flattener would not be ideal for flattening the TEC160F7 scope. The result is too much of a compromise for this scope.

Roland

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Nagy <topboxman@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Dec 31, 2021 9:32 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Anyone using 13035FF Field Flattener with TEC140FL?

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 10:30 AM, Roland Christen wrote:
I have calculated the spacing required for the 140 TEC using the AP 130 Field Flattener, #13035FF. The distance would be 96.5mm measured from the back of the main flattener body flange without the back focus extension.
If you think 130355FF would work with TEC 160FL, I would appreciate if you could calculate the back focus for this setup as well. Also would it fill a full frame camera like ASI6200MM or QHY600M? 
 
Thank you and Happy New Year!!!!
 
Peter

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Greg Vaughn
 

Thanks, Roland, for your check of optical compatibility of the 13035FF with the TEC160FL.

 

Since it’s not a good optical fit, It appears that I will, in fact, need to remove the OAG from my imaging train to find sufficient room for a PreciseParts adapter to connect with the 160FL flattener.   As I mentioned previously, I think the extra length for the adapter is required because of the nature of the flanged connection to the TEC flattener, which is similar to the connection used to connect a camera to the 2.7in FF for the AP 105 Traveler (67PF562) - and still shown in ‘discontinued products’ on the AP website ( https://www.astro-physics.com/67pf462 ).

 

I suppose the two options with the Mach2 are to master imaging without guiding or move the guide camera to a separate guide scope mounted on the focuser/OTA.   It was a couple years before I moved to the OAG and I’ve gotten quite accustomed to, and fond of, it.   I already use APPM for mapping, however, so hopefully a further jump to imaging without guiding won’t be too difficult.

 

Happy New Year and Clear Skies!

 

Cheers,

Greg

 

Greg Vaughn

Alexandria, VA


Virus-free. www.avast.com