Poll: Best travel scope (airline carry-on)

"Tim Powers" wrote in message ...

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope?

It's hard to answer without knowing your other constraints. Do you
want to carry the complete scope on board, or are you willing to
carry just the optical tube, and check the mount? If so, is there
an upper limit on the size/weight of the mount due to other
constraints (e.g. total baggge allowance)? Would you consider
checking the whole telescope? How much are you willing to push
what the airlines officially allow on board? (Note that 2/3
of all passengers on any given flight are exceeding their
official allowance -- but mostly with stuff that can be checked
at the last moment if necessary, which would not be a good idea
with an optical tube in a lightweight case.)

I assume this is for visual observing only, not photography.
Do you want an equatorial mount, or is altaz OK? Do you have
to observe standing up or is sitting OK? Does this have to be
off-the-shelf or are you willing to do some construction, or
have somebody else do it for you?

After answering all of those, you're going to end up looking
at three classes of scopes: catadioptrics, short-focus
refractors, and truss-tube Newtonians (probably Dobs).
Catadioptrics give best performance per unit length, refractors
best performance per unit diameter, and truss-tube Dobs best
performance per unit total volume/weight including mount.
Good luck!

- Tony Flanders

Hi Tim
I travel with a Stellarvue 102EDT refractor (f6), Giro mount, and Bogen tri-
pod. The mount and tripod are broken down and packed in my suitcase, and the
102EDT and eyepieces and diagonal are carry-on and fit well in the overhead
bins. On top of Haleakala in Maui I have also noticed other tourists- one with
a C5, and one with a FS-128. Your mileage may vary.

Wes



"Tim Powers" wrote in message ...
I hope I'm not being too forward here, I know it's been a while since I've
participated in the group.

A possible change in jobs has got me thinking I may be doing quite a bit of
travel for business in the coming years. One upshot is the chance to travel
to dark-skies, (NM,KS,WY...)something that is quite difficult here in the
Northeast. In fact, Long Island (where I live) could possibly be the worst
place in the country for accessing dark skies. Among my greatest nights of
observing came while on vacation (Steamboat CO), and without a telescope!
Darks skies and dark adapted eyes showed me more than my C8 from Long
Island!

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope? I guess we could go with
2 categories.

Under $1000 (where I'll be shopping)

and

Over $1000 (where undoubtedly most will say are the best performers)

all-types of scopes considered, optical performance should be the most
heavily weighted criteria.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL, ITS A POLL, please refrain from rehashing old arguments
about which scope type is inherently superior. Please, just give your
endorsement without detracting from others. Practical experience is
certainly the best support you can give.

Thanks,
Tim

Hi Tim
I travel with a Stellarvue 102EDT refractor (f6), Giro mount, and Bogen tri-
pod. The mount and tripod are broken down and packed in my suitcase, and the
102EDT and eyepieces and diagonal are carry-on and fit well in the overhead
bins. On top of Haleakala in Maui I have also noticed other tourists- one with
a C5, and one with a FS-128. Your mileage may vary.

Wes



"Tim Powers" wrote in message ...
I hope I'm not being too forward here, I know it's been a while since I've
participated in the group.

A possible change in jobs has got me thinking I may be doing quite a bit of
travel for business in the coming years. One upshot is the chance to travel
to dark-skies, (NM,KS,WY...)something that is quite difficult here in the
Northeast. In fact, Long Island (where I live) could possibly be the worst
place in the country for accessing dark skies. Among my greatest nights of
observing came while on vacation (Steamboat CO), and without a telescope!
Darks skies and dark adapted eyes showed me more than my C8 from Long
Island!

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope? I guess we could go with
2 categories.

Under $1000 (where I'll be shopping)

and

Over $1000 (where undoubtedly most will say are the best performers)

all-types of scopes considered, optical performance should be the most
heavily weighted criteria.

THIS IS NOT A TROLL, ITS A POLL, please refrain from rehashing old arguments
about which scope type is inherently superior. Please, just give your
endorsement without detracting from others. Practical experience is
certainly the best support you can give.

Thanks,
Tim

"Tim Powers" wrote in message ...
I hope I'm not being too forward here, I know it's been a while since I've
participated in the group.

A possible change in jobs has got me thinking I may be doing quite a bit of
travel for business in the coming years. One upshot is the chance to travel
to dark-skies, (NM,KS,WY...)something that is quite difficult here in the
Northeast.

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope? I guess we could go with
2 categories.

Under $1000 (where I'll be shopping)

and

Over $1000 (where undoubtedly most will say are the best performers)

all-types of scopes considered, optical performance should be the most
heavily weighted criteria.

Under $1000: Short tube 80
Over $1000: TV 76

Both work adequately on a light tripod (especially if you have a fine
touch). Both are excellent for terrestrial use also, a nice feature
while travelling. Neither will delay your fellow travelers by failing
to meet the carry-on requirements.

Regards,
Dave

"Tim Powers" wrote in message ...
I hope I'm not being too forward here, I know it's been a while since I've
participated in the group.

A possible change in jobs has got me thinking I may be doing quite a bit of
travel for business in the coming years. One upshot is the chance to travel
to dark-skies, (NM,KS,WY...)something that is quite difficult here in the
Northeast.

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope? I guess we could go with
2 categories.

Under $1000 (where I'll be shopping)

and

Over $1000 (where undoubtedly most will say are the best performers)

all-types of scopes considered, optical performance should be the most
heavily weighted criteria.

Under $1000: Short tube 80
Over $1000: TV 76

Both work adequately on a light tripod (especially if you have a fine
touch). Both are excellent for terrestrial use also, a nice feature
while travelling. Neither will delay your fellow travelers by failing
to meet the carry-on requirements.

Regards,
Dave

"Tim Powers" wrote in message
...

A few questions, how would the C5 compare to say an ETX125? (Currently, my
favorite targets are globulars and planetary nebulas. Although I've never
seen any detail on galaxies from my polluted sites, so I get little
satisfaction out of them...now)

Is an ETX125 even possible as a carry-on?

Tony Flanders ) wrote:
What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope?

It's hard to answer without knowing your other constraints. Do you
want to carry the complete scope on board, or are you willing to
carry just the optical tube, and check the mount? If so, is there
an upper limit on the size/weight of the mount due to other
constraints (e.g. total baggge allowance)? Would you consider
checking the whole telescope? How much are you willing to push
what the airlines officially allow on board? (Note that 2/3
of all passengers on any given flight are exceeding thei
official allowance -- but mostly with stuff that can be checked
at the last moment if necessary, which would not be a good idea
with an optical tube in a lightweight case.)
I assume this is for visual observing only, not photography.Hi,
I have also the problem with the ETX125: Since I fly within Europe in very
small aircrafts, I'm afraid that they would not even accept just the tube as
carry-on luggage and would insist I leave it with the main luggage (their
overhead compartments are very small indeed!). On the other hand, the Meade
ETX125 hard case seem quite sturdy to me.
I just received the telescope, delivered by Royal Mail. Seeing how it was
packed by Meade (just a couple of plastic molds in a cardboard box, without
foam, or anything, it seemed to me that It was more risky than if I want to
travel with it by plane in it's hard case, filled with foam and looking
quite solid. Did someone had actually ever had a bad experience flying with
a telescope in the main hold (with the obvious "FRAGILE" labels on it}?

Philippe

Did someone had actually ever had a bad experience flying with
a telescope in the main hold (with the obvious "FRAGILE" labels on it}?

I have witnessed luggage thrown/launched onto dollies and into the hold from
the lift, fragile sticker or not. I've had suitcases crushed under so much
weight that the shells were embossed. If your scope case is well padded
inside and substantially armored on the exterior, it could survive an
aircraft hold with only a need to collimate. If the scope gets an x-ray and
tagged for inspection, you can't count on everything being buttoned up
correctly. UPS or FedEx is more gentle.

Over $1,000 or under, my choice of travelling telescope is the same, I
take twin refractors in the form of a Canon 15x50 IS Binocular. They
fit in my suitcase or carry on. They give wide views of the cosmos,
and they're great for viewing natural wonders.

Coppy


"Tim Powers" wrote...

What is your opinion on an airline carry-on scope? I guess we could go with
2 categories.

Under $1000 (where I'll be shopping)

and

Over $1000 (where undoubtedly most will say are the best performers)

all-types of scopes considered, optical performance should be the most
heavily weighted criteria.