In an earlier thread, Paul Gabriel asked: >is anyone using a Meade 8" LX90? A colleague of mine has recently purchased one, so I asked him what his opinion of it is. He acquired it as a replacement for his 10" f6.3 LX200 which was destroyed and for which he received rather little compensation from his insurers. For domestic peace, he chose not to spend the amount it would have cost him to replace the 10" with a 12", as he first contempleted, but he is in fact quite pleased with some aspects of the 8" LX90. He only recently bought the thing and, living at a high Latitude, he has only just begun to use it. As he puts it, "Up here Astronomical dusk doesn't start until half-past August"! What he li,kes most about the LX90 is that it is extremely quick to set up and start observing with. He lives in a mountainous area which has very unreliable weather, so he has to be prepared to take advantage of brief gaps between rain and snow showers. The 8" being considerably easier to lift and shift than the 10", he doesn't bother to de-rig it from the tripod between observing sessions. He simply takes the whole assembly out into the garden, switches on, does the rapid align, and starts observing within well under a minute. The other thing which he loves about the LX90 is the self-contained powersupply. He no longer has to worry about setting up power cables, together with the associated tripping hazard, etc. There are a few things which he dislikes, especially when trying to track satellites. He had modified the motor drive system on his LX200 to make it go faster and, until the warranty period on his new 'scope expires, he will delay upgrading the rather slow motor system on the LX90. He says that it is not much good at keeping up with what he calls the "fast movers" and for that reason he is looking forward to modifying the motor system. Bear in mind that he is not only comparing it to the LX200 which is faster anyway, but he is also comparing it to his modified LX200 which was very fast indeed. He has not replaced his Pictor CCD, so he has not yet run into the problem, but he says that the forks on the LX90 are smaller than the LX200 and that he reckons that the bulk of a focal reducer and a camera on the "blunt" end will preclude the use of the 'scope for high altitude angles. Of course he could get around this limitation by using an equatorial mount, but as yet he has not purchased any extras for his new 'scope. His only optical gripe is that he would have preferred an f6.3 to the f10 which he bought. Otherwise, the LX90 is optically identical to the LX200, but cheaper to buy and easier to use. All in all, his verdict is that he is pleased with the LX90. He says it is good value for money and is a worthy successor to his old LX200. Cheers, Chris Olsson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe' in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 02:06:03 PDT