Wo flt 110

[Loupy31]

Hi All,
I am concidering buying the WO FLT 110 scope and would like to here from others on the forum what they think of it, what the performance is like, build quality, any problems or quality issues and so forth.

Regards Peter :thumbsup:

[vash]

I just went through this myself comparing all the scope in this price range. I ended up deciding on the flt110.

It is very good, I've never been a refractor person but I think I am now because of this one,
I had a couple of little issues with the dew shield but that was an easy fix, but optically it is great, nice clear views, sharp stars and barely any colour around brighter stars.

I bought mine as an imaging scope but even visually it is very nice.

[casstony]

A German site has tested a few WO apo's the optics were not good - over corrected and astigmatic:

http://66.102.11.132/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.astro-foren.de/showthread.php%3Fp%3D39697&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.astro-foren.de%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafar i%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhhUEEBKOFGGGVzZqo4POoQU93d qHQ#post39697

This suggests some problems with QC.

[marki]

Thats the German site that gave a bad report on the GSO/Astrotech RC scopes and much of what was said appears at this point to be unfounded :shrug:. I am starting to wonder if the sticker labelled "made in taiwan" is a factor here. Just a thought mind.

Mark

[casstony]

I don't think he's biased about country of manufacture since he has long held the skywatcher ed lenses in high regard (for the price). It's always possible that 2 or 3 scopes tested come from a bad batch or there is a problem with testing methodology, but poor test results are cause for concern that needs to be weighed against info from other sources.

[marki]

Yeah I agree but just find it a little strange that he seems to get the "bad ones" so to speak. Perhaps it is very much to do with the methodolgy used when setting parameters :shrug:. I have read a few threads on another site where this particular gentleman answered some critics on that very matter. Problem I have is that if the scope is an unknown entity these type of results can produce some very fixed ideas about the scope for ever more. I certainly have not heard any FLT owners bagging their scopes although a few have sold them to buy TV and Taks :thumbsup:.

Mark

[Dave47tuc]

Hi Peter,
I own a WO Megrez ED110. Only used it a few times and it is really nice.
I would have brought the FLT110 but it was to expensive for me and my wife:whistle:
Anyway build quality is very nice and I can not fault it at all.
The focuser is as smooth as silk.
The views are very sharp and contrasty. The Moon had very little colour. I could hardly see it. Saturn was very sharp at 100x never had the scope out in great seeing yet. I don't observe much any way's.
I also use a Binoviewer and really like it.
I have looked through a few WO scopes and thought all where very nice.
Some people like to nit pick at everything about a scope.
But if the scope suits you and you enjoy using it then that's the right one for you regardless of fancy so called tests.
So if your looking for that size scope I'm sure you will like it very much:thumbsup:
Cheers.

[Alchemy]

i have seen some stunning images by the williams scopes, is Tak better.... at twice the price id hope so, but twice as good....

i can only say have a look at what has been done elsewhere, most people do not use their scopes to its maximum potential.

is a subaru wrx the fastest car or is it a ferrari ...no ... but in the hands of a skilled driver it can do wonders.

price of a wo flt 110 new about 3400, tak fs 106 7000 plus, if you think its worth the extra dough go buy it.

of course if you are imaging theres the camera, the mount, and the bit that doesnt cost so much the processing, not to mention composition.

its easy to be a nit picker, if you can afford the best, but have alook at some of the images taken here on IIS , does expensive scope = great picture....... nup. theres more to it than that.

[batema]

Hi,

I bought my Flt 110 in October last year. I absolutely love this scope as do others I have spoken to on this forum who own one. I use mine mostly for imaging but visually the moon looks great as do clusters , nebula and planets.

The 4" focuser is great as are the looks of the thing. Finish and craftsmanship are excellent. I am no expert at processing but will include an image of my set up and NGC 5128 taken last month, stacked in DSS and some of my limited processing in CS3.

I love this scope.

Mark

[Alchemy]

yes, all the negative talk seems to be from those who dont have one.
all the posts here testify to it being good. praise enough i think

clive

[bluescope]

Beautiful scope ... excellent optics for visual and imaging ... very handy size and weight ... I don't use my other scopes any more.

Check out my website for images taken with my FLT110 and an SBIG ST2000XCM ... ;)

:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Humm...dealer hat off for a bit.

The Original WO 110's were sublime IMHO. The current model has re-designed focuser which is smoother than the original, but less robust.

The current flattner (PFLAT-68) shows no artifacts like the original, but delivers a slightly more curved field.

As for correction, I have seen a few, and they are very very good.

Maybe not quite Taka country...but I have seen one or two astigmatic FSQ's that I frankly would have sent back.

What do I use? A "new Q" FSQ 106 Taka.....but I'd very happily put a WO110 FLT on the short list.

[keppar]

Mark (Batema)
,What is the model guide scope you got on rig, is not the setup too heavy for EQ6 pro because I,m interested in in simular setup

[keppar]

OOPS forgot ,Mark do you use a field flattener
Graham

[vash]

I use a similar set up except I use a skywatcher ED80 pro guide scope DSI2 and this is absolutely fine on an eq6 pro.

I used to use a 10" reflector and the ED80 guidescope on the eq6 and this didn't have a problem either.

I also just got my WO field flatterer yesterday, not clear tonight to test it out though.

[batema]

Hi Graham,

I just got back from a three day astronomy inservice which was fantastic. The guide scope I use is a williams optics 70mm. The mount handles this no problems. To give an indication I mount a 12" Dob on it and it handles that fine but I wouldn't go any further. I do not have a field flattener but will invest in one soon. The photo of centaurus A is 8 x 10 Min lights with 3 x 10 Min darks. No flats or bias frames applied.
Good luck with your purchase.

Mark

[keppar]

Thanks Mark......Ashley you got a P-flat3 or P-Flat 68?
Graham

[Geoff45]

I have a WO ZS110, which has the same lenses as the FLT110. My only regret about purchasing it is that I didn't go for the FLT, which has a much better OTA. I can't fault the optics at all. However, it seems that WO do have some QC problems, since there are clearly some bad ones appearing every now and then
Geoff

[keppar]

Geoff
How do you know if your scope is not up to par.And sorry what does QC stand for ?
Graham

[Geoff45]

QC=Quality Control.
The easiest way to test a refractor for the average user is by using a star. You need to look at the image slightly inside and outside focus. The nearer they are to identical, the better the scope. You also need to look at false colour. An APO should show almost none, an achromat will show some slight blue fringing around bright planets. The book to get is by Souter "Star testing astronomical telescopes"
Geoff

[vash]

I got the pflat 3

[dpastern]

I do not believe that this book is in print anymore, and it fetches very high prices 2nd hand now. I was lucky to get a copy ten or so years ago. I'd forgotten all about it, but found it a few months ago, much to my delight!

Dave

[Geoff45]

There is a new edition out. Bintel have it for $79.
Geoff

[keppar]

Thanks All

[casstony]

Ran across another review of WO flt 110's that weren't up to scratch, but the review suggested improper lens spacing was responsible for the SA; so if anyone had a poorly performing sample there might be an relatively easy fix.

" After explaining the problems with William Optics, I was told that I would receive a new and proper OTA that would be inspected. We finally got the second unit in for testing and inspected it. The first thing I checked for was the dust inside and once again, it was caked with it, just like the first one but in various other parts of the glass inside. I'll post pictures of this one too. The new 2” to 1.25” adapter fit better though and the focuser was adjusted properly but then came the worst. We set the scope out to cool for two full hours and once again, it had a severe amount of under-correction, so much in fact, that the images were very soft at higher magnifications of around 180x to 200x and I could see that nasty glow around Saturn again. At this point, it was like bringing
a pocket knife to a gun fight when comparing it to the FLT110-TEC. It’s quite possible that the spacing of the optics was the culprit. I brought this issue up with William Yang in New York at the North Eastern Astronomical Forum, better known as NEAF. He explained that improper spacing of the elements was most likely the cause."

Source:http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1467733/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/all/vc/1