Question on air travel with tripod and 85mm scope (1 Viewer)

[CMB]

I have searched the forums about this topic but haven't found many answers.

Scope: Swarovski ATX 85mm (4.2 lbs, 67.4 oz)

When traveling by air for a birding trip, what tripod would you recommend for this scope?

How/where do you pack an appropriate sized tripod when traveling by air?


Tripods I have been looking at:

Gitzo GT2542 (Mountaineer Series 2, 4 section): 22" collapsed
Gitzo GT3542 (Mountaineer Series 3, 4 section): 21.26" collapsed
Gitzo GT3543LS (Systematic Series 3 long, 4 section): 22.4" collapsed
Gitzo GT4553S (Systematic Series 4, 5 section): 18.9" collapsed

We have been using a Slik 700DX Pro tripod with a MVH500AH head for local birding and road trips by car. It's stable and affordable, but it is long at 26" collapsed. It is also heavy at 5.9 lbs for the legs only, and 7.9 lbs for legs and head combined.

Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions.

Chris

 

[Mike Crawley]

I have a specialist optics backpack (Lowepro)
It takes my ‘scope (Swarovski ATS 80mm), binoculars and bridge camera. Plus various chargers and my iPad.
It’s just small enough and light enough to be cabin luggage.

I have a Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod (055MFV ? with a 128RC ? head) which I wrap in clothes and goes in my ordinary luggage (80 litre Berghaus hold-all with wheels and an extending handle).

Without getting everything out of the loft, etc. I can’t say what any individual piece of it weighs or measures.

 

[CMB]

I have a specialist optics backpack (Lowepro)
It takes my ‘scope (Swarovski ATS 80mm), binoculars and bridge camera. Plus various chargers and my iPad.
It’s just small enough and light enough to be cabin luggage.

I have a Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod (055MFV ? with a 128RC ? head) which I wrap in clothes and goes in my ordinary luggage (80 litre Berghaus hold-all with wheels and an extending handle).

Without getting everything out of the loft, etc. I can’t say what any individual piece of it weighs or measures.

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

I missed the Manfrotto MT055CXPRO3 (3 section) CF. Thank you for the reminder. The leg diameter of that is very close to the Gitzo Series 2, 3 section Mountaineer.

We have a similar Lowpro pack and a wheeled carry-on size Pelican case for optics. So we've got the scope and binoculars covered for flying.

We've never flown with large scopes yet. Our largest suitcases are about 27" long inside on the diagonal. Typcially recommended 3 section tripods for an 85mm scope won't fit inside with a head installed.

Does anyone fly with or use one of the padded tripod travel cases?

Chris

 

[Alexis Powell]

I don't travel with large scopes, but if I did it would be the same as with what I've done w/camera gear. The tripod gets rolled in clothes and put in the center of a checked bag (often a duffel). The optics go with me in the cabin. If I have room, I will also take the tripod head with me in the cabin. In the past, I've taken large and small tripods or monopods with me, but these days carry-on is often more limited. Also, I have occasionally run into problems with security objections to taking tripods (even small ones) or monopods as carry-on.

--AP

 

[CMB]

I don't travel with large scopes, but if I did it would be the same as with what I've done w/camera gear. The tripod gets rolled in clothes and put in the center of a checked bag (often a duffel). The optics go with me in the cabin. If I have room, I will also take the tripod head with me in the cabin. In the past, I've taken large and small tripods or monopods with me, but these days carry-on is often more limited. Also, I have occasionally run into problems with security objections to taking tripods (even small ones) or monopods as carry-on.

--AP

Alexis,

Thank you for your reply.

Removing the tripod head and putting it in carry-on would reduce the length of the tripod and might allow it to work in our checked luggage. Appreciate the suggestion.

Chris

 

[Mike Crawley]

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

We've never flown with large scopes yet. Our largest suitcases are about 27" long inside on the diagonal. Typcially recommended 3 section tripods for an 85mm scope won't fit inside with a head installed.

you are welcome
I forgot to mention that I remove the head, simply by taking out the elevating central column, so no tools required.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Alexis,

Thank you for your reply.

Removing the tripod head and putting it in carry-on would reduce the length of the tripod and might allow it to work in our checked luggage. Appreciate the suggestion.

Chris

As a follow-on note, I'll add that my original motivation for removing the head was because my tripod head was worth more than the legs I owned, and I also figured that if the legs were lost in transit it would be easier to find a legset that worked well enough at my destination than to find my preferred head.

--AP

 

[Binastro]

In 1988 on a trip to La Palma I took a Celestron 5 telescope in a close fitting case as hand luggage in the cabin.

I always used a small wheeled hand trolley for any luggage.
I was a frequent flier for my job. Maybe now I would think twice about all these air miles.

The tripod, a Slik 88, went in the checked luggage with little protection.

Although not very steady the scope could be used at 100x or more with care.

The aircraft were Boeing 767s and 737s.

Binoculars and cameras were allowed free of weight, so I had a Japanese Celestron 20x80 on the neck strap in its case and a Minolta camera plus 50mm f/1.4. in an ever ready case. Both around my neck.
The photos were excellent as was the binocular.

A book was also allowed free of weight, but I didn't take 'War and Peace'.

The Celestron 5 wasn't used much as someone carted a 6 inch Newtonian in a large aluminium case and its tripod and paid extra.
But it was used outside our hotel down the mountain.

La Palma is I think the world's steepest mountain and driving up without going over the edge was interesting in hired Fiestas.

The rocks were still hot from the previous eruption.

Comet Halley was nice in the Celestron 20x80.

Regards,
B.

 

[CMB]

As a follow-on note, I'll add that my original motivation for removing the head was because my tripod head was worth more than the legs I owned, and I also figured that if the legs were lost in transit it would be easier to find a legset that worked well enough at my destination than to find my preferred head.

--AP

Alexis,

Your post made me laugh. We are in the same situation with our Slik 700DX Pro tripod. The head costs more than the legs, but the tripod is very stout and sturdy.

 

[CMB]

In 1988 on a trip to La Palma I took a Celestron 5 telescope in a close fitting case as hand luggage in the cabin.

I always used a small wheeled hand trolley for any luggage.
I was a frequent flier for my job. Maybe now I would think twice about all these air miles.

The tripod, a Slik 88, went in the checked luggage with little protection.

Although not very steady the scope could be used at 100x or more with care.

The aircraft were Boeing 767s and 737s.

Binoculars and cameras were allowed free of weight, so I had a Japanese Celestron 20x80 on the neck strap in its case and a Minolta camera plus 50mm f/1.4. in an ever ready case. Both around my neck.
The photos were excellent as was the binocular.

A book was also allowed free of weight, but I didn't take 'War and Peace'.

The Celestron 5 wasn't used much as someone carted a 6 inch Newtonian in a large aluminium case and its tripod and paid extra.
But it was used outside our hotel down the mountain.

La Palma is I think the world's steepest mountain and driving up without going over the edge was interesting in hired Fiestas.

The rocks were still hot from the previous eruption.

Comet Halley was nice in the Celestron 20x80.

Regards,
B.

Binastro,

Thank you for your reply. When you checked the Slik 88, was it in its own bag, or check with no back, or in a bag with all your other clothes?

Chris

 

[jring]

Hi,

of the four tripods listed above I would only consider the first two due to the two systematic options listed being too small for me w/o a center column. The taller of the two systematic options GT3543LS is 4 ft 9.5" and would be too low for me (6 ft 2") even if I add 5" each for head and scope...
If I would want a systematic, I would choose the GT4542LS or GT4533LS - both of which are longer fully retracted, the latter considerably.

Both mountaineer options do offer 5 ft 4" or 5 ft 5" with the center column fully extended - with 5" each for head and scope I will probably end up with the center column half down or so - which helps with stability.

Joachim, who throws his cheap Velbon CF legs and 500AH head with the clothes in the checked roller bag. Optics go into the carry on backback - not even a dedicated photo one, just the one I take to work or for shopping...

 

[Binastro]

Hi Chris,

I cannot truly remember, but maybe the tripod was in my bag wrapped in clothes.
I never had a case for the tripod, which I still use.

The Celestron C5 was in the fancy lightweight metal and wood?? box that housed the Zoomar 500mm f/5.6 mirror lens and 2x teleconverter.
It fitted the C5 tightly.

Obviously La Palma isn't actually the steepest mountain in the world.
It may be the steepest road up a mountain.
It was used by rally cars, but Fiestas were underpowered.
One of our drivers was famously someone who nobody wanted to be passengers.
I was the front seat passenger.
Firstly on a hill start the car alarmingly rolled rapidly backwards. I yanked the handbrake before we hit the car behind.
The Fiesta was left hand drive. He was used to right hand drive.
On the climb up the mountain we were suddenly inches from going over a drop of maybe 500 ft. or more
I had to take charge of the steering wheel to save us.

With his own car he backed from his drive at speed into a large metal skip.
The excuse was that it wasn't there the night before.
Saabs are tough.

Forgive me now for these stories when he is no longer here.
He was a Doctor of Engineering.
At least I gave him my 14.5 inch Newtonian when I no longer needed it.
He moved to a very dark site with a purpose built observatory.
It also housed the Zeiss 120cm f.7 Cooke triplet from 1920 that was an aerial survey lens of very high quality.

When I was in my teens I used a Broadhurst Clarkson 25-40x55 drawtube scope that went everywhere with me. In its leather case it was very tough.

I think that with air travel one has to carefully plan and maybe use different equipment than normally.
Maybe now airlines would be lenient in order to get business.
But the captain and crew must be obeyed if they deem a scope too large for the cabin.
It might be that a Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov is the answer for a compact scope.

Regards,
B.

 

[CMB]

Hi,

of the four tripods listed above I would only consider the first two due to the two systematic options listed being too small for me w/o a center column. The taller of the two systematic options GT3543LS is 4 ft 9.5" and would be too low for me (6 ft 2") even if I add 5" each for head and scope...
If I would want a systematic, I would choose the GT4542LS or GT4533LS - both of which are longer fully retracted, the latter considerably.

Both mountaineer options do offer 5 ft 4" or 5 ft 5" with the center column fully extended - with 5" each for head and scope I will probably end up with the center column half down or so - which helps with stability.

Joachim, who throws his cheap Velbon CF legs and 500AH head with the clothes in the checked roller bag. Optics go into the carry on backback - not even a dedicated photo one, just the one I take to work or for shopping...

Joachim,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your reasoning about tripod selection.

Chris

 

[CMB]

Hi Chris,

I cannot truly remember, but maybe the tripod was in my bag wrapped in clothes.
I never had a case for the tripod, which I still use.

The Celestron C5 was in the fancy lightweight metal and wood?? box that housed the Zoomar 500mm f/5.6 mirror lens and 2x teleconverter.
It fitted the C5 tightly.

Obviously La Palma isn't actually the steepest mountain in the world.
It may be the steepest road up a mountain.
It was used by rally cars, but Fiestas were underpowered.
One of our drivers was famously someone who nobody wanted to be passengers.
I was the front seat passenger.
Firstly on a hill start the car alarmingly rolled rapidly backwards. I yanked the handbrake before we hit the car behind.
The Fiesta was left hand drive. He was used to right hand drive.
On the climb up the mountain we were suddenly inches from going over a drop of maybe 500 ft. or more
I had to take charge of the steering wheel to save us.

With his own car he backed from his drive at speed into a large metal skip.
The excuse was that it wasn't there the night before.
Saabs are tough.

Forgive me now for these stories when he is no longer here.
He was a Doctor of Engineering.
At least I gave him my 14.5 inch Newtonian when I no longer needed it.
He moved to a very dark site with a purpose built observatory.
It also housed the Zeiss 120cm f.7 Cooke triplet from 1920 that was an aerial survey lens of very high quality.

When I was in my teens I used a Broadhurst Clarkson 25-40x55 drawtube scope that went everywhere with me. In its leather case it was very tough.

I think that with air travel one has to carefully plan and maybe use different equipment than normally.
Maybe now airlines would be lenient in order to get business.
But the captain and crew must be obeyed if they deem a scope too large for the cabin.
It might be that a Skywatcher 90mm Maksutov is the answer for a compact scope.

Regards,
B.

Binastro,

Great stories!! Thank you for sharing.

Wrapping tripods in clothes in checked luggage seems to be the packing method of choice for traveling.

Chris

 

[kb57]

I'd concur with everyone's 'scope in hand luggage - tripod in check-through' advice, I've done the same myself without any issues, again by wrapping the tripod in clothes.

 

[CMB]

I'd concur with everyone's 'scope in hand luggage - tripod in check-through' advice, I've done the same myself without any issues, again by wrapping the tripod in clothes.

Thank you kb57.

I'm going to need larger check-in luggage...