Patrick: these would be easier solutions on a Cessna than on a Piper or Cirrus I think, right?
AeroPlus wrote:
Patrick: these would be easier solutions on a Cessna than on a Piper or Cirrus I think, right?
Affirm!
I’m not sure about the generic option #3 – if you could find some place on the Cirrus airframe to attach it to.
Any high-wing aircraft with wing struts will be compatible, of course.
On an SR22, a good location would seem to be one of the landing gear legs. After all, the camera wants to be looking downwards.
Somebody did something similar on the footsteps on an old TB20. The newer ones have retractable footsteps which is no good.
It’s the wiring which is tricky, which is why a real plus is a camera which can run by itself and be turned on/off via wifi or bluetooth. Wifi tends to draw too much power and impacts the battery life and this is evident from reports on action cams which support wifi.
One can do external wiring, if it is routed tightly along the outside and taped down with duct tape and this works fine for a one-off. But it is really tacky, could peel the paint off, and might draw unwelcome attention from some types.
I am looking at the Sony 1000V or the AS50, both of which appear to have bluetooth remote on/off, and two bluetooth-selectable viewing angles (the narrower angle appears to be tied to enabling the image stabilisation).. This makes them ideal for external mounting without any wires – so long as the battery can last long enough for the whole flight with just bluetooth running. I am trying to work out the exact features, from the “dumb consumer” website info 
The 1000V is partially sealed without any external case whereas the AS50 (which is newer) isn’t but claims to have image stabilisation suitable for quadcopter use i.e. high frequency vibration (which is not to say the 1000V doesn’t have the same).
Thanks Peter. As I move from the Piper Seneca 2 to the SR22T and then to the Mousquetaire aircraft, I would prefer a suction cup solution that will just stick. In both cases, I lost the camera with a high indicated airspeed e.g. in a descend. I have also the double suction cup mount. Maybe I should try that one.
AeroPlus wrote:
Thanks Peter. As I move from the Piper Seneca 2 to the SR22T and then to the Mousquetaire aircraft, I would prefer a suction cup solution that will just stick. In both cases, I lost the camera with a high indicated airspeed e.g. in a descend. I have also the double suction cup mount. Maybe I should try that one.
I’m wary of any suction cup solution because it also depends on the altitude and other factors how well it holds. For example, my suction cup in the cockpit usually comes off at 7000ft. or above. I realize the stronger the suction cup is, the higher up this will happen or the less likely this is – but if mounted outside, I would always be flying with a nagging feeling that I it just MIGHT come off in the right conditions. And if that happens over a congested area… I don’t know.
The solutions above (granted, a strut or similar is required) will not come off.
Patrick wrote:
I’m wary of any suction cup solution because it also depends on the altitude and other factors how well it holds.
Suction cups externally strike me as a terrible (probably negligent) way to “secure” a camera.
It depends a lot more on the shutter type of the camera than the mounting point. Most small ‘action cams’ like GoPro have what’s called ‘rolling shutter’. What you need to eliminate the ‘jello’ effect is called ‘global shutter’. I don’t have time to look it up now, but there are a few products out there that have it.
As for mounting points. I once ( few years ago) did a series of tests with a maintenance organization (IOW, the mounts were installed by mechanics, not just jerry-rigged by me) and on a Cessna we could not find a vibration / jello-effect free position. Locations tried were top of tail, aft tie-down hook , inspection hatch underneath cockpit, inspection hatch under wing, hard (lift) point under wing, wing tip. All with the top-of-the-line GoPro of the time. Nothing really worked.
Suction cups externally strike me as a terrible (probably negligent) way to “secure” a camera.
I agree – it’s bound to come off. Look at the force estimated in that doc I linked, and realise it acts sideways, not perpendicularly to the mounting surface.
What you need to eliminate the ‘jello’ effect is called ‘global shutter’. I don’t have time to look it up now, but there are a few products out there that have it.
There seems to be nothing which you would want to pay for let alone mount externally
The other point is that if you get yourself a normal camcorder with a manual shutter, set it to 1/80, you get no prop at all. I have posted this before (look around 0:40)
so if you don’t mind “a bit of size” the solution is pretty trivial. I am not sure what is currently the smallest/cheapest 1080P HD cam which has a manual shutter; maybe somewhere 500-1000 quid?
HD is now old hat of course, and a good cam should deliver it at an amazing quality at say 25mbits/sec.
The gotcha is making it moisture-proof…
on a Cessna we could not find a vibration / jello-effect free position. Locations tried were top of tail, aft tie-down hook , inspection hatch underneath cockpit, inspection hatch under wing, hard (lift) point under wing, wing tip. All with the top-of-the-line GoPro of the time. Nothing really worked.
Others have reported that too. Possibly one does need an isolated mount, but that causes problems outdoors (size etc).
However a lot of the resonance is to do with the mount. Go-pros are normally mounted on a “stalk” so there is 5-10cm of distance between the camera and the airframe. Any resonance on this stalk will reflect directly into a sideways movement in the image. Whereas if one could mount the camera by gripping it around the front, that would be avoided.
Also the go-pro waterproof case is reported as responsible for a lot of the vibration.
This is also interesting (Sony AZ1):
Steady Shot ON (massive jello effect visible):
Steady Shot OFF:
FAA approval for SR22 to carry external cameras
Is this applicable in any way to owner-installed external equipment? For example via a demonstrated “similarity” to one of these approvals?
I believe @Pilot_DAR has been involved in this area…
I’ve found an underwing external camera to have no effect whatsoever, although that one is very compact and a lot more streamlined that e.g. a Go-Pro would be.
In Alaska antlers a regularly tied to the struts on bush planes (legally with a permit)….but how about this for drag:
