From time to time people wonder about the strength of the various camera mounting systems is. Here's a gopro *suction cup* mount that stays on despite a crash in the woods. Impressive.

I was a very big fan of my GoPro suction mount for about a year...then one day...it flew off.

Im no longer a fan of the suction cup mount unfortunately.

AKT

Try washing your plane one in awhile, bet it stays on.

Hey Guys,

I have a mount I designed to mount to the wingstrut. I designed it around the Cessna 172 strut, but so far it fits every strutted cessna I have tried it on. It also can be configured to work on any tubular structure with a diameter range of 1.13" to 3". It is made from custom 6061-T^ extrusion with additional CNC machining done. If anyone is interested feel free to PM me and i will send more info with pics.

Best regards,

Marc

Is the strut far enough away on the typical C-172 prop that you can avoid the annoying prop affect?

idair wrote:Is the strut far enough away on the typical C-172 prop that you can avoid the annoying prop affect?

If you want the plane in the shot, this will greatly reduce prop artifacts: http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/17969

If you don't want the plane in the shot, then just point the camera in such a way that the prop isn't in the shot. There is no rule saying that the camera must be pointing directly forward.

idair wrote:Is the strut far enough away on the typical C-172 prop that you can avoid the annoying prop affect?

The Camera be mounted toward the top of the strut and still be facing forward in line of flight and not have the engine in view. However, I tend to mount the camera just inboard of the pitot as I like seeing the engine cowling and since I run the camera at 60FPS, 100FPS and 120FPS the faster shutter speed makes the prop look much better. Also any ND filter above 1.2 will also make the prop blur look normal. The Nflightcam product for the gopro looks quite nice, but I have never used it myself. Only downside I see with it, is in the picture, the filter looks to be a film and not a coated piece of glass and I would much prefer glass.

Anyone interested in any info or pics on my mount PM me with your email address and I will send out some images.

Best regards,

Marc

I mounted (and would mount again if I owned one) a gopro to the most outboard inspection plate of the 172 - which is further out than the strut - and keeps the prop and the jelly roll to a minimum. I've done it with the suction mount - but it's a matter of time before you lose the camera. I would fabricate a small and more secure replacement inspection cover with the gopro arm more securely mounted - and set it up so the camera is just in front of the leading edge of the wing.

soyAnarchisto wrote:I mounted (and would mount again if I owned one) a gopro to the most outboard inspection plate of the 172 - which is further out than the strut - and keeps the prop and the jelly roll to a minimum. I've done it with the suction mount - but it's a matter of time before you lose the camera. I would fabricate a small and more secure replacement inspection cover with the gopro arm more securely mounted - and set it up so the camera is just in front of the leading edge of the wing.

This is exactly what I did, works great. I added a neoprene cushion for vibration dampening.



On edit . . I did not trust the 3M sticky mount completely, so I drilled and recessed a bolt/nut to secure the mount to the inspection plate.

is the only way for me to attach a pic is with a URL? I'd like to show my mount but my photos are all local.

Marc

You used to be able to upload photos to BCP, but that's been disabled while The Man finishes up the new version of the site. I'd be astonished if he didn't have that feature again once the new site is live.

Until then, you can upload your photos to flickr or picassa and link them using URLs here.

rw2 wrote:

idair wrote:If you want the plane in the shot, this will greatly reduce prop artifacts: http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/17969

Just found this alternative this morning. Tons cheaper.

http://www.eyeofmineactioncameras.com/G ... esnp-3.htm

rw2 wrote:

rw2 wrote:

idair wrote:If you want the plane in the shot, this will greatly reduce prop artifacts: http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/17969

Just found this alternative this morning. Tons cheaper.

http://www.eyeofmineactioncameras.com/G ... esnp-3.htm

Just ordered one - thanks for the legwork!

Sierra Hotel wrote:Just ordered one - thanks for the legwork!

Excellent. I'd love to see a before/after video when you get it. I'm thinking of getting one in a few weeks when I'm in Chicago.

Addicted2climbing wrote:is the only way for me to attach a pic is with a URL? I'd like to show my mount but my photos are all local.

Marc

Hi Marc,

Try this:
1) Go to http://imgur.com
2) In the upper right click upload image from computer.
3) Click "start upload"
4) On the right side you will see "BB code message board and forums". Copy/paste the contents of that box, into your reply message, or type it exactly by hand here.

In any case, done well you will see an image like this:

If this still fails for you, let me know and I'll just have you e-mail it to me.

rw2 wrote:

Sierra Hotel wrote:Just ordered one - thanks for the legwork!

Excellent. I'd love to see a before/after video when you get it. I'm thinking of getting one in a few weeks when I'm in Chicago.

rw2. Here's a short clip I did an a recent flight with the polarizer filter. Overall, it makes the prop issue tolerable. Now I've got to try and tackle the vibration thingy . . . .

rw2 wrote:

idair wrote:Is the strut far enough away on the typical C-172 prop that you can avoid the annoying prop affect?

If you want the plane in the shot, this will greatly reduce prop artifacts: http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/17969

If you don't want the plane in the shot, then just point the camera in such a way that the prop isn't in the shot. There is no rule saying that the camera must be pointing directly forward.

Remarkably, a polarized lens from an old pair of sunglasses also works well.

The solution has nothing to do with polarization, rather just the decrease in available light to the sensor, causing a slower scan rate, enough to allow the prop to be blurred into "invisibility."

Many polarizers have inherent stop-down effect, which is why this is working. You'd get the same result from a neutral density filter, but polarizers have the additional desirable effect of cutting haze, making your footage look better.

Sierra Hotel wrote:rw2. Here's a short clip I did an a recent flight with the polarizer filter. Overall, it makes the prop issue tolerable. Now I've got to try and tackle the vibration thingy . . . .

I find that shooting at 60fps or better makes a difference in terms of both prop artifacts and vibration. I also recently realized that I had more gopro connectors than I needed between the VHB and the camera. By turning the adhesive mount 90 degrees I was able to remove connectors and that was tremendously helpful in terms of reducing vibration.

How would the externally mounted GoPro do in a ramp inspection?

How a phone call to the FSDO go if I asked about this?

Thanks