John<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> You know, I am really glad that I asked you about this. You gave me a lot of meat to chew on. My fantasy is to have a 36" trailer mounted scope with a lazy-boy recliner attached parallel to the scope near the eyepiece all run by hydraulics using a joystick for maneuvering. OK, now back to reality. I would love to see your mount when it's done. I checked with Nova and Steve Dodds can make a 22" f6, no problem. Go to 24" and there is a big jump in price. I checked with Astrosystems and they can make a 22" f6 truss tube Dobson Telekit just like Rich Tenney's f6.25 16" scope. I have a van to lug this thing around in. The juiciest piece of meat you gave me is: "Even with a 32mm super wide field eyepiece, you will have 103 power and somewhere around 1/2 of a degree true field of view." My 22mm Neagler gives me about 96x (12.5" mirror, 2220mm focal length) but I don't know what the true field of view is off hand. The 41mm Panoptic (which I don't own) would give me about 81x in the 22" (3352 focal length) and hopefully as much field of view as the 22mm does in my 12.5" scope. If that is true, I can live with that. The North American Nebula and the Vail Nebula would be about the only things I have seen so far that would require me to pan around. You are right I am most interested in DSO. I don't know if you know Brent Watson. I took a class from him when I built my 12.5" scope and a lot of his thinking has rubbed off on me. He likes high focal rations. In your comment" "Properly figured, a 22" F4 scope" To me you jumped right to the bottom of the f scale when you mentioned F4. I prefer to consider the longer focal ratios then grudgingly slide down into practicability, which your comments are doing to my thinking and I appreciate that. I tend to like higher contrast and less coma problems all better in longer focal length. You also made me think - I am sixty now, how long can I carry a 22" mirror mounted in a box around? I know my 12.5" mirror is hefty. The 22" mirror is 2" thick but I don't know how much it weighs. I would probably be better off going back to a 20" mirror or maybe even 18". I looked through Lowel Lyon's 20 f4.5 at Wolf Creek last week end and it was very good. I always love looking at stuff through Rich's scope too. So, you are making me think and I thank you for that. Jim