Skywatcher Startravel 102mm

[HAL]

Anyone using the Skywatcher Startravel 102mm with the Quark?

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telesc ... t-ota.html

The focuser is broken on my ED80, I purchased a new focuser but the holes don't line up and it doesn't fit. I'm frustrated! The Startravel is only £30 more than the new focuser and I'll get 22mm extra aperture. It doesn't matter that it's not apochromatic because I am imaging at a single wavelength. But.... is it a reasonable scope otherwise? Is the focuser on it ok?

I would appreciate any insight from anyone using this scope with a Quark for imaging.

My SolarQuest mount has also developed a fault so I'm feeling very disgruntled today!

Adding a mosaic I took with my Quark + ED80 a few days ago before everything started failing on me!

110822mosaic_inverted_cropped.jpg (2.47 MiB) Viewed 579 times

[marktownley]

F4.9 is way too fast for a Quark IMHO... The focuser on it is junk (IMHO!). I know, I had one, I donated it to the RGO at Hertsmonceaux.

The ED80 is a stunner of a scope for solar - Ha, CaK and WL; don't get rid of it!

In what respect don't the holes line up on the focuser?

[Montana]

Lovely images HAL I hope you get your problems sorted.

Alexandra

[HAL]

Thank you Mark, I needed to hear some sense. Apparently this is a common issue when replacing the 80ED focuser, I am sending it away to be fitted rather than giving up.

Thank you Alexandra

[RodAstro]

I like my ST102.
It Is my potable scope so it is a nice no worries scope very durable.
The focuser is adequate for rough focusing I then use a 1.25 helical focuser after the Quark for fine focus, in this position the helical works like a 10-1 fine focuser because of the telecentric beam.
Afraid I don't like the general overpriced Crayford focusers as they don't hold much weight and the bearings are always breaking, they need at least eight or better twelve bearings or bigger bearings like the original design.

I use the 102 stopped down to 72 mm for imaging and visual surface detail but full aperture for proms visually.
I also always use a bino head for visual and the focuser is fine with that.

Just my opinion Rod

[Radon86]

Hello Hal,

I have used a 60mm F3.75 guidescope with a helical focuser with the Quark. So I suppose the Startravel 102 could work.
Have you bought this yet ? You could use this as a back up visual scope with the Quark. The focuser is probably not so good, but you could perhaps upgrade the focuser if you found it unsatisfactory.

Daystar says F4 to F7 is suitable for full disc viewing. I can use my 90mm F10 refractor for visual and imaging as well.

Hope this helps.

Magnus

[DeepSolar64]

Hal,
Sorry about your SolarQuest fault. I have an AZGTI and It never seems to track the sun good enough and the image has to be re-centered too frequently. I would love to have one tracking well enough that when clouds cover the sun and reappear the sun is still at least in the eyepiece field! It's better than no tracking at all but it still should be better.

Nice image!

James

[HAL]

Absolutely beautiful capture with the 102mm Rod!

Thanks Rod and Magnus for the idea to add a 1.25" helical focuser, I have never tried this.

James, interesting comments about the AZGTI, since it seems to be basically the same mount as the SolarQuest. My SolarQuest was very good at first, it has gone away now to be inspected so we will see what they say. I could put my solar gear on my EQ5 but I absolutely hate the EQ5, I have never been able to get along with it and mine seems to have all kinds of issues, the latitude slips amongst other things. I like the ease of the SolarQuest.

HAL

[DeepSolar64]

HAL,
I asked Sky-Watcher about the SolarQuest mount Vs the AZGTI. They said the SolarQuest had an additional encoder which improves it’s tracking on the sun vs the AZGTI. I didn’t know that at the time I bought it and bought the AZGTI for versatility since it can do nighttime too. I actually sent the AZGTI back to Sky-Watcher to have it checked out and they said it was working as it should. They could find nothing wrong with it. I was expecting better tracking with it.

James

[marktownley]

HAL,
I asked Sky-Watcher about the SolarQuest mount Vs the AZGTI. They said the SolarQuest had an additional encoder which improves it’s tracking on the sun vs the AZGTI. I didn’t know that at the time I bought it and bought the AZGTI for versatility since it can do nighttime too. I actually sent the AZGTI back to Sky-Watcher to have it checked out and they said it was working as it should. They could find nothing wrong with it. I was expecting better tracking with it.

James

I have the solarquest and the azgti. I initially didn't like the AZgti but now prefer it - things I found most important with it; make sure is perfectly level, make sure is pointing north and I also bought a handset to use it which made things so much easier (compared to phone). I'm on the boat at the minute and have the AzGti with me, the solarquest I have left at home...

[DeepSolar64]

Mark,

Pointing north? Is yours adapted to be an equatorial? I do need to see if I can get a hand controller. I am not nuts about the phone either.

James

[marktownley]

Mark,

Pointing north? Is yours adapted to be an equatorial? I do need to see if I can get a hand controller. I am not nuts about the phone either.

James

I'm sure one side of it has to point north when you set up initially? I've 'sharpied' N E S W ob the 4 sides of mine to remind me.

[DeepSolar64]

Mark,
Hmm...Maybe that's where I am screwing up! Nothing was mentioned of this in the instructions that I remember and the SW tech didn't mention it to me either. Take a pic of your sharpied mount and post it. I have no idea what side should point north.

Thanks!

James