I took the plunge...

[Alan W. Craft]

...and gave the go-ahead for Parks to custom-manufacture an
8" f/5 Newtonian for me. While Scope City sells the Parks
8" f/4 O.T.A. for $1400 and their 8" f/6 for $1000, they're only
charging an extra $100 over the cost of the latter for the f/5.

Do you think that the increase is appropriate, or should it have
been priced the same as the f/6, or closer to the f/4?

This will be my second Newtonian, but really my first serious
reflector as I don't believe a plastic-tubed 3" model purchased
at the then Crosstown Sears Surplus in Memphis for no more
than $20-30 would count. I eventually threw the bulk of the
outfit away, but I did save one of the .965" oculars, a 12.5mm
Huygenian that appears to be serviceable.

Aside from all of that, I'm quite anxious to see what an 8"
Newtonian will show.

Alan

[Etok]

"Alan W. Craft" <mauritius4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rsl8jvksg0sddioua0539riho3i2up17gm@4ax.com...
Congrats!
I think the price is fine, but I'd have him throw in a set of Kellner EP's.
The Parks kellners are pretty good. The 2X 1.25" short Barlow is excellent.
Call 'em up and ask them for some "honey" to sweeten the deal. They'll go
for it, I bet.
I don't think you'll have any problems with the OTA optics. Better than
most you'll find in the marketplace.

Are you going to get the equatorial mount too? When did they promise you
delivery? Keep us posted.

Regards,
Etok



__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[LarryG]

"Etok" <helloman@bogusnet.net> wrote in message
news:3f34627b_2@news2.uncensored-news.com...
EP's.
excellent.

Kellners perform well at f/8, OK at f/7. Below these, the performance drops
off appreciably. If you are looking for good eyepieces (at reasonable
prices) to
complement an f/6 scope, consider Plossls, Erfles or Wide Angles for low
power.
For higher power, get Orthos, maybe Plossls.

Cheers,
Larry G.

[Alan W. Craft]

On 9 Aug 2003 02:54:51 GMT, "Etok" <helloman@bogusnet.net> ...reflected:


It'll include everything described here, but as an f/5 instead:

"Includes: 8" f/6 Primary Mirror, 8" Primary Mirror Cell,
1.83" Secondary Mirror, 1.83" Secondary Mirror Holder,
9 3/8" 4 Vane Spider, 1.25" Rack & Pinion Focuser,
9 3/8" ID (9 3/4" OD) Fiberglass Tube (gloss white
exterior, matt-black non-reflective interior), (2) End
Rings (black), 6x30mm Finderscope with Bracket, 25mm
Kellner Ocular 1.25", Collimation Tool, (2) Dust Covers,
Optical Certificate and Instructions."


8 weeks at the latest? I think that's how long it'll be.


Will do.

Alan

[Alan W. Craft]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:18:12 -0500, "LarryG" <gilstrap@texas.net> ...reflected:


Rather, it'll be an f/5, and in conjunction with my ocular "arsenal" that
I've haphazardly assembled thus far:

University Optics 4mm orthoscopic
" " 5mm "
" " 7mm "
" " 9mm "
" " 12mm konig-II
" " 16mm "
" " 20mm erfle
Parks 25mm plossl
Tele Vue 40mm plossl
Vixen 6mm orthoscopic
" 9mm "


I'm looking forward to trying out some more Plossls, perhaps an 11mm
and up, and maybe a Panoptic or two, over time.

<snip>

Alan

[Scribe2b]

alan
how did the storm affect your area? less trees on your horizons???
clear seeing
jere

[Alan W. Craft]

On 9 Aug 2003 02:54:51 GMT, "Etok" <helloman@bogusnet.net> ...reflected:

<snip>

Sorry I missed this...


The reason I'm shooting for an f/5, with its consequent
tube length, is so that I might effectively perch it atop my
Vixen GP-DX without it being, at most, too unwieldy; and
with the 8" f/6 O.T.A. weighing in at around 20 lbs. the
f/5 should be at least, perhaps, 3 to 4 pounds lighter.
This combined with the GP-DX's conservatively-rated
capacity of 22 lbs. makes for quite the calculated gamble,
particularly when one is mindful of the Chinese-cloned
outfits, or rather...misfits, beginning to proliferate throughout
the celestial marketplace.

However, if I lose my "bet" I will publicly admit to my
mistake, that is, if the combination fails to perform as
anticipated. In such a case I will then, perhaps, be
swayed out of necessity towards acquiring a Parks
Superior mounting...

....and then, later, a 12.5" f/5 to go along with it!

8^)

Alan

[Rod Mollise]

> Do you think that the increase is appropriate, or should it have

Hi:

Since this might be a one-off thing, I suppose it's fair...BUT a good f/5
mirror should be at least a little easier to produce than a good f/4 one.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto <http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

[Alan W. Craft]

On 09 Aug 2003 22:00:33 GMT, rmollise@aol.com (Rod Mollise) ...reflected:


Yes, Rod, I've always understood that the faster the primary the
harder it is to figure. I wish I could've went with an f/6, and not
because I could've saved $100 but because I could've skipped
the coma corrector with its extra photon-diminishing "windows."
As it is I'll have to get one, but not before I try the scope out
to see if I might go without it for awhile.

Tonight I bought four sheets of poster board with which to
make a model of the 8" f/5 tube, and to simulate how the actual
one will look and fit onto the GP-DX mount. I know, it's a little
too late for that now since I've already placed the order, but
I'm curious nonetheless.


Alan

[William R. Mattil]

"Alan W. Craft" wrote:

Seems appropriate to me. The question really is though how do you feel
about it ? :^)


Alan,

You can spend a very large number of years looking at all that an 8" f/5
will reveal.

Regards

Bill

--
William R. Mattil | Fred Astaire wasn't so great.
wrmattil@ix.netcom.com | Ginger had to do it all backwards
(972) 399-4106 | and... in high heels.