I have done the measurement again – the GP4 external housing is 67mm wide, 57mm high. The GP Frame 2.1 would be rather less
Before digital cameras were really a thing, I know of a film SLR camera mounted externally to a Cessna 140 once towards the outboard end of the strut (the shutter release pressed by an RC servo, the passenger with a 72MHz RC aircraft transmitter – this was not in the UK otherwise it would have been 35MHz with an antenna twice as long!) There was no detectable effect. Also the same SLR was mounted to the wingtip of a Nangchang CJ6 with no effect detected.
This is a camera which can do 1080P 60FPS at 50mbits/sec, or 4k at about 100mbits/sec.
It’s broadly comparable to the latest Go-Pro. I believe all the action cams have the same sensor, from Sony.
Is that an reflection of an eagle on the lens?
Other than Gopro and this Sony, what are the options? For an aircraft, size obviously matters a lot, smaller is better. What about mounting it in the cockpit?
Is that an reflection of an eagle on the lens?
Well spotted 
but it’s just a sticker on our patio door(s), to prevent birds flying into them and killing themselves.
Other than Gopro and this Sony, what are the options?
I think there is another thread on it somewhere here. Garmin Virb, Tomtom do one. Search on Virb for example. Go-Pro seems to own the “person mounted” market, and some other sectors, and for good reasons – to do with lots of mounting options. The Sony is not so good for chest mounting for example because it sticks out more (looks a bit silly).
All the action cams have a battery life not above about 2 hours, which is fine for most surface use but can obviously be a problem on an aircraft where, once mounted, you can’t touch it. And while one can turn it on/off via wifi or in some cases (some other Sony models) bluetooth, this doesn’t extend the battery life because the camera seems to be running internally flat out, capturing 4k and outputting 1080P on it’s HDMI output! Also, you don’t really want to interrupt recording due to this
For an aircraft, size obviously matters a lot, smaller is better. What about mounting it in the cockpit?
Sure can of course but you lose contrast and gain lots of hassle with reflections.
Internal:
External:
I think the regulations are aimed at
a) being sure that the camera won’t fall off and land on someone’s head
b) being sure that somebody hasn’t made a stupid decision to attach a camera somewhere daft, like on a control surface.
LeSving wrote:
Other than Gopro and this Sony, what are the options?
As Peter has mentioned the Garmin Virb is very nice, I have a couple, one the new model (which was comparable in price to the GoPro) and one the old version which I bought for £70
The advantage of the Garmin for aviation is the fact that GPS data is overlaid on the recording, and can be displayed in the resulting video in many different formats. The point of the video I posted earlier is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Garmin image stabilisation, which looks better to me. I have certainly tried it on a rubber sucker on the inside of a canopy, which certainly looked a bit wobbly but the video turned out fine. The Garmin is also waterproof as it stands without any external case, which I thought was good.
As well as a phone app you can also control Virbs from a Garmin Aera 660, and link several cameras together
The Go Pro has a bigger chunk of the market, and there are more third party mounts for it, and the software is apparently a bit better.
I didn’t look at the Sony, but I’m sure its good.
Anyway, it seems to me that they are all quite similar and different users will find different products more useful to them.
LeSving wrote:
Other than Gopro and this Sony, what are the options?
I have an actionpro X7 with the advantage of a screen on the back, so you can check what you record. And it is cheaper than the GoPro.
Neil wrote:
The Go Pro has a bigger chunk of the market, and there are more third party mounts for it, and the software is apparently a bit better.
I think the new VIRB uses GoPro mounts.
From the AFS-300 memo dated 03/16/14:
Another consideration, in the case of this type of equipment, is the applicability of the term
alteration. FAA Order 81 10.37E, defines an alteration as a modification of an aircraft from
one sound state to another sound state. The use of suction cups, or other temporary methods of
attachment (not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft), would not be
considered a modification to the aircraft. These temporary attachments would not be subject to
the regulatory purview of 14 CFR part 43.
The use of these type attachments however are not supported by the FAA, and may (in the case
of an inflight detachment) lead to careless operations” as provided for in 14 CFR sections
91.13 and 91.15
People may interpret that “clarification” according to their own nature and preconceptions, but one such interpretation might be that
It is perverse that a suction cup attachment is “legit” because it is pretty likely to come off and if it hits the elevator at 150kt, the dent in the leading edge will likely make the plane unairworthy right after you landed.
As well as costing a packet to repair, because you have to de-skin the elevator, etc. Under EASA there is no AC43-13-style general repair manual, and e.g. Socata’s position is that all flight surfaces are critical and skin cannot be replaced. A new elevator was €7k in 2012, plus VAT, plus painting etc.
There is a significant number of ex-aircraft Go-Pros, with suction cups still attached, in the Alps Might be a productive hobby to look for them. Kind of reminds of me of this
The phrase “or other temporary methods of attachment (not including permanent mechanical attachments to the aircraft)” is interesting. What constitutes a “mechanical attachment”? A hole presumably does not. A hole with a rivnut (a rivet with a threaded hole) in it? I suspect they mean brackets etc.
