Hows the progress? If it goes well before next april do you think you would be able to help me with this?
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=103450
I am also using a canon A1 so footage would easily integrate with my film....thanks

I don't intend to fly again until next spring (2008).
So there won't be any more to report until then.

I have concluded that most of the vibration problem
was due to the engine rpm, and on this light airplane
the engine vibration transfered easily through the wing
strut to the camera. Air turbulence was also a factor.
The fabric wing on this small airplane was simply
too bouncy to mount the camera.

The next time I plan to mount the camera on the
airplane's floats in hopes that location vibrates less.

I'm also considering another mount. I'm looking for
8-inch diameter PVC pipe. I plan to cut it 2-foot long
and slice it twice length-wise.

Next, I'll wrap the XH-A1 in foam packing and
close the PVC clamshell around the camera, then
wrap the pipe with duct tape.

That will provide a solid shell around the camera
to mount to. This will encase the camera in more
vibration-dampening foam than before. As you can
see, I enjoy tinkering and experimenting.

Another possibility
 

I also shoot aerial video, but mine is done from inside a Mooney at higher speeds. My initial reaction upon watching your clip was "hey that was shot from a helicopter", i.e. low-RPM engine vibration. But my next reaction was "hey that's wind vibration".

Vibration can really plague airplane owners. One of my friends is currently battling a problem where his compass vibrates so badly that the liquid inside it is frothing. Mechanics can't seem to fix it.

But you might strongly consider the possibility that it's not the engine creating the vibrations, but rather the wind. If your mount is not completely 100% rigid (and it is impossible to make it 100% rigid!) then the wind can cause a tiny amount of oscillation. In this case, the faster your airspeed, the higher the vibration frequency. The problem is that the engine speed is linked to the airspeed, so how do you know which problem to attack?

There is a trick. You might be able to differentiate wind effects from engine effects by having the pilot slow the plane down to a very slow speed, pull the nose up, and rev up the engine while keeping the speed very slow. This is typically called "flight at minimum controllable airspeed", and every pilot knows how to do it. It will change the whole dynamic so that the engine is running just as fast as normal, but the wind effect will be drastically reduced. If you find the vibration changes, then it may be the wind doing it. At the other end of the spectrum, you could have the pilot create a high airspeed, low RPM condition by pulling the power and lowering the nose to pick up speed. See what difference that makes to the vibrations.

I'm going to want to talk to you some more offline, as there aren't too many of us using the XH-A1 for aerial videography, and we might be able to share tips and experiences.

Dave Morris

Thanks for your post Dave, please discuss this topic online right here, for everyone's benefit -- much appreciated,

I've done some aerials over the years, both from small and large helicopters and small planes.The most important thing I found is the pilot. If you get a pilot who is experienced at aerial photography flying, you're halfway home already. One time I was having difficulty from a helicopter with the wind, and the pilot went way upwind and tilted over and sort of drifted back over the site, and it was nice and smooth, moving with the wind at a perfect speed.

My single most important piece of equipment for aerials is...a barf bag.

I've been thinking about using some housing with windshield (like 6.6x6.6" UV haze filter) attached with dedicated mount, and independent mount for the camera behind. That setup should absorb most wind vibrations without transfering them to camcorder. If the system is sturdy enough, optical disadvantages should be minimal, similar to adding another glass in matte box. After all, big budget pros usually keep their cameras behind some nice piece of glass.

Do you guys have any experience with using protective housings for aerial videography?

Thanks for all interesting hints!

But our numbers are growing... [g]

Not ready to hang a $3k+ cam out there yet, but still testing various systems myself. Thanks, Eric for following up and posting some footage. I see pretty much the same vibration with the aerial video I've taken to this point.

We just took ownership (pilot partner and myself) of our own Cessna 172 this past week and expect to be continuing to test options as well.

I don't think anyone would dispute that for mission critical video you really need to go the helicopter/stabilizer route. But of course that's big budget projects with clients and their deep pockets. There's a lot of us who fly & shoot who would like to develop techniques for shooting usable video without having to invest a huge chuck of change.

We bought and tested this unit on one of our experimental planes:
http://flyfbi.com/html/camera_mount.html

Kinda' fun and cool, but again, the vibration was a major drawback.

The construction of this unit and many others is clever from an engineering perspective, but surely comes up short as far as the results are concerned. Made by engineers not photographers I guess.

Haven't tried this, but hard to see how it would be much different (?):
http://www.skyeye.com/Applics.html

This is the best I found so far for remote, fixed wing footage, and I've emailed these folks with some questions. Very expensive however:

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/data/aer...ml#exter_mount

Check the websites of the manufacturers of helicopter mounts for design ideas. Although the OP is using an external load permit for his ops, I don't think they issue those in the lower 48 (perhaps someone can post a citation to the contrary). If you develop something you could work with the FAA on getting an STC for various aircraft. There's definitely a market.

I would have some serious concerns regarding the last refuge configuration or any similar other which aerodynamically loads the Cessna strut so far outward below its centreline.

Where the wooden contoured clamp goes on, there may well be a solid internal fitting which anchors the strut tube to the wing. This may well function as an anti-crush device but it is not the original design intention.

Readily apparent, is the torsional leverage the camera and remote controlled mount will have over the wing-strut attach point.

If the attach point is a pin arrangement without allowance for torsional movements in the strut tube, then torsional loadings are going to be transferred to the attach point on the wing and to the fuselage attach point as well.

A fatigue fracture at the wing-strut junction might be induced but not become manifest until long after the mount has gone soemwhere else. Failure at this attach point is not something I would like to contemplate when airborne.