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.