GoPro Strut Mount for Cessna's

A

Addicted2climbing

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
142
Display Name
Display name:
Addicted2climbing
Hello all,

My name is Marc Webster and I am a student pilot flying a Cessna 172N. In 2007, I designed a Camera mount for my Gopro to mount to the tubing of my Hanglider and had great results. When I decided to pursue my PPL, I modified the design to work with all 3 common sizes of Cessna Struts. I have been testing this mount for a little over 2 years on various strutted GA aircraft and have had this mount up to 160kts without any issues. The mount can be configured into two different configurations; one version for wing struts and one for tubular structures between 1.2" and 3" diameters. In the Tubular configuration the mount is used without the tail piece and can be configured back and forth easily. In its tubular configuration, I have used it on the following: Hanglider, Go Cart Roll Bar, Race Car Roll Bar, Sailboat mast, ATV Roll Bar, Wakeboard Boat Tower, Mountain Bike head tube, Handrail on stairs for skateboarders, Ski lift chair and movie rigging scaffolding.

In the strut configuration, by having the front and tail piece separate it can work with struts of multiple chord length and thickness so long as the leading edge contacts the rubber portion of the front and the rear contacts the tangent point of the strut before the trailing edge bottoms out in the rear tail piece. Both main parts are 6061-T6 aluminum made from custom extrusion I had made to my drawings. The aluminum parts are machined on a CNC machine and are made in the USA. The Custom Straps are made in USA from material made in the USA. The camera is attached to the mount with a professional quality Ball mount thus eliminating all the plastic Gopro arms.

I have a second version of this mount designed that is smaller to work with smaller Vee type struts like used on Cubs, Taylorcrafts and Champs. I am in the process of having a few prototypes made of the smaller version at the moment.

I have provisional patents filed on both versions. The Cessna version is available now with the smaller one to follow soon.

I sell the mount with a set of straps for whichever plane you choose for $125 I also include a longer strap for tubular configurations.

Strap lengths fit the following
S1: 150/172
S2: 182
S3: 185/205/206

I have some pics uploaded here: http://cloudbaseengineering.imgur.com
Here is a link to a Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1koRZCiJGc

This video is just raw footage edited to cut the sequence length down. Also on the plane I rent the nose wheel shimmies like crazy which affects the video on takeoff and roll out.

Anyone interested can contact me at the email below.

Best regards,

Marc Webster
addicted2climbing@gmail.com
 
Last edited:
Hello All,

Here is a link of the mount used at Johnson Creek at the Backcountry Flyin. At the end of th evideo on final approach you can see the aftermath of a landing accident where tragically a 2yr boy lost his life. My heart is with all involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS8OBevdwiA

Best regards,

Marc
 
bflynn said:
I think I like this one better still...

http://www.aerovideo.net/
Click to expand...

For what it's worth I have sold a few of my mounts to people to replace the aero video mount. Mine is much easier to mount on and off quickly and is less of an issue on people who rent and don't own the plane they fly. Also my mount is more strut agnostic as well and I sold one to a person with a 185 as he said the AV mount did not clamp well on his 185 strut.

Best regards,

Marc
 
How well would one of these work on the step of a Mooney Ovation? The step is attached to a strut that looks similar in fore-aft size as a Cessna strut, but may be thinner in terms of chord thickness.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How well would one of these work on the step of a Mooney Ovation? The step is attached to a strut that looks similar in fore-aft size as a Cessna strut, but may be thinner in terms of chord thickness.
Click to expand...

Hello

I have yet to try that. If you pm me your email address i can send you a template you can print out to test the fit.

Best regards

Marc
 
Does anyone have a drawing or design spec for the Cessna Wing Strut a friend is going to mill a block of aluminum similar to the wingitmounts.com one but I need the strut dimensions and radius--- Help
 
Definitely looks like it works, but honestly your price (as well as the AV mounts) is pretty steep. To accomplish basically the same thing, but with more options for camera angles and aircraft compatibility, I went with the RAM strut mount kit: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004826GRW/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
All I did was got some replacement hose-clamps for a couple bucks with a "wing-nut" type screw to make it easy to not need tools (and that makes the FAA happy...).
 
I got the "roll bar" mount from GoPro. It won't go on a Cessna, but it will fit the step (oval cross section about 2" wide) on the Navion.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
All I did was got some replacement hose-clamps for a couple bucks with a "wing-nut" type screw
Click to expand...

I got the RAM mount as well, but I can't find a hose clamp that I know will fit a 172 strut and also has a wing-nut screw. Where did you get yours, and what size did you get?
 
gprudlow said:
I got the RAM mount as well, but I can't find a hose clamp that I know will fit a 172 strut and also has a wing-nut screw. Where did you get yours, and what size did you get?
Click to expand...
Home Depot had some. I did measure the strut circumference beforehand, but when I got there they had the sizes in diameter. :mad: They also only had a two-pack, but I got it anyway, as they looked close to what I needed. One in the pack worked perfect, but the other was too small for a wing/fixed gear strut, but too small for a retract gear strut/foot step. I ended up using that Turn-Key screw in a smaller "normal" hose clamp base, so I now have one for any strut on many different aircraft.

1004132223-00.jpg
 
Sorry if it is a touchy subject, but why are the Cloud Base Engineering and Aero Video mounts so expensive?
 
AmazonChitlin said:
Sorry if it is a touchy subject, but why are the Cloud Base Engineering and Aero Video mounts so expensive?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing because they're small start-up companies, most likely with only the one person making them by hand. Since they don't have resources and customer base such as RAM, they cost per unit is much higher.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
I'm guessing because they're small start-up companies, most likely with only the one person making them by hand. Since they don't have resources and customer base such as RAM, they cost per unit is much higher.
Click to expand...

Hey guys I wanted to reply to the mention of my mount as well as others costing more then the RAM units. Highfying A380's speculation is correct.

Yes people can support a large company with far larger resources, manufacturing quantity discounts and OEM backing like Ram but their mount will not be as specialized nor as versatile as mine. Also I have worked very hard for years to get this mount to where it is now and to be able to offer it to others. I do like and agree about RAM's philosophy to keep its manufacturing in the USA. In an attempt to compete, I could cut costs and have parts made in China, but I don't agree with that philosophy either. I have been very conscious to keep all manufacturing and sourced materials as made in USA and more so manufactured within my local community. There is only one part out of the many parts on my mount that is made elsewhere and its not China. If I could get that single part as a made in USA product I would but sadly its not an option. Both of my custom made extrusions are made in the USA which is the bulk of the cost of my mount.

Also I am not some large corporation either; I am one person. I am a pilot who has the background, skills and desire to develop a product like this with the knowledge of what a pilot would want. I am also an EAA member and plans holder for a Bearhawk LSA with aspirations to one day build that as well. I also intend to one day buy a straight tail 172 to fly and build hours while I am building.

So as consumers you do have a choice, support the big guy that just so happens to make something pilots can use as well as a myriad of others non aviation based products, or support your niche manufacturer's (myself or others like me) who generally have a passion for aviation and will put their profits if any back into the aviation community.

Best regards,

Marc
 
I'd add that A2C is a nice guy and offered to have me test one of his mounts, but I balked at needing to sign an NDA. Just not a huge fan of that sort of legal involvement unless I'm an insider.

Most tests of things like that around here locally (usually software) that I've done, I know the person and there's a trust level and the NDA isn't necessary because they know where I live and would come beat my ass. Ha.

Wasn't any judgement on A2C not to participate however. I just avoid signing contracts with people I don't know whenever possible.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd add that A2C is a nice guy and offered to have me test one of his mounts, but I balked at needing to sign an NDA. Just not a huge fan of that sort of legal involvement unless I'm an insider.

Most tests of things like that around here locally (usually software) that I've done, I know the person and there's a trust level and the NDA isn't necessary because they know where I live and would come beat my ass. Ha.

Wasn't any judgement on A2C not to participate however. I just avoid signing contracts with people I don't know whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Hey DenverPilot,

No worries, I also understand as well and probably would have done the same. I was just worried about my design and trying to make sure my design was safe. Well now that its out in the world and the patent is in place there is no need for an NDA. My offer still stands, and your more then welcome to try one out for a bit. Just let me know if your interested.

Best regards,

Marc Webster
 
Hi Marc-

All really neat stuff, and I'm sure zillions of people are having absolutely no issue sticking these on planes... but something you might want to be thinking about as you are marketing these for money.. is the pesky rules.

I would think it prudent to be very careful so you don't attract unwanted attention for selling unapproved aircraft modifications--stuff that flies perfectly fine on experimental aircraft but we can't (unfortunately) use on certified aircraft...

and I'll add----if anyone has an update (Advisory Circular - FAA Policy Letter) that allows this, I'd love to know!

good luck
 
Last edited:
Pilot195 said:
Hi Marc-

All really neat stuff, and I'm sure zillions of people are having absolutely no issue sticking these on planes... but something you might want to be thinking about as you are marketing these for money.. is the pesky rules.

I would think it prudent to be very careful so you don't attract unwanted attention for selling unapproved aircraft modifications--stuff that flies perfectly fine on experimental aircraft but we can't (unfortunately) use on certified aircraft...

and I'll add----if anyone has an update (Advisory Circular - FAA Policy Letter) that allows this, I'd love to know!

good luck
Click to expand...

Hello Pilot 195,

As of now, my mount is perfectly legal as the rules are currently written. However, my guess is due to the zillions you mention that it will change in the future. By then I will have an STC, but even so as I said its legal now. I plan to start the STC process to be proactive about the possibility of any change in the rules.

Before selling these, I spoke with multiple FSDO offices as well as an adviser from the EAA and AOPA and they all confirmed my findings saying my mount does not fall under the restrictions in the rules of Part 43 Apendix A since it is not a major alteration to airframe or skin.

The mount is designed for quick easy on and off and does not require any modifications to the airframe to use, nor does it require interacting with any existing holes or tie down locations on the strut or airframe. It is small and compact enough to not adversely affect the handling of the airplane in any way. I requested paperwork from the FSDO on carrying external loads and you would be surprised just what is allowed without any sort of prior approval and they're suggested means of attachment is questionable at best and my method is much more secure. Rifles, cross country skis, snowshoes, sheets of plywood and even a canoe and their recommended methods of attachment primarily relies on bungee cords.

I have done my homework on this and for those wanting to attach a small camera to a strutted aircraft mine is by far the most secure. Most that I have heard of falling off the plane were due to suction cups letting go. Whats crazy is suction cups rely on a differential of pressure for suction to work so when I plane climbs to altitude and the differential between the two drop to the point the drag can overcome the cup...it flys away... I met a guy who lost 3 cameras and had his 4th on a Cherokee when I pointed that out..:nono: I am more afraid of the users using suction cups causing an accident then I am of my mount letting loose.
 
awesome Marc -- thanks for the update!

best wishes :)
 
Any tips on getting the fsdo to give an ok? When I called they said they would have to inspect the installation regardless of how easily it attaches/detaches and how small the camera is.

Thanks. I'd like to get a perspective other thanks from inside the cockpit someday.
 
Hello Dan,

There in lies the rub. All I speak to say its fine, but I cant get anyone to sign their name on the dotted line so i can give buyers something to show proof. It seems that they are willing to help, think my product is great, tell me I meet their current rules but then they turn a blind eye when I ask for something in writing. To end this, I will likely begin the STC route after the holidays.

Marc
 
IANAL, but from what I've been told by my Mx department and both the KC and STL FSDOs, if there are no tools required for installation/removal, then it's perfectly fine. The STC/field approval route is only required if tools are required. That's why I modified the hose clamps for use with my RAM mount, and my custom mounts all have wing-nuts. It appears A2C's mount is also tool-less, so is good-to-go.
 
Hard for me to understand the logic.

Anything mounted externally will have effects.

Maybe benign most of the time, but not always.

I saw a rather large camera mounted to a pitot tube under but just ahead of the leading edge of the right wing of a Light Sport. Gave me real concerns about how the stall on that wing would propagate at high angles of attack. And how the right wing would very likely stall before the left, possibly initiating a spin.

I saw a GoPro mounted to a rudder "horn" - if a coat of paint can unbalance a control surface, what about a camera and it's mounts? Not to mention the aerodynamic effects.

And so on.

But the logic I question is how does the need for tools in any way affect this?

BTW, I have up to now tried three different external mounts on my Sky Arrow - on top of the canopy, on the left strut and on the tail skid. But I'm Experimental, which I assume gives more leeway.

In any event, I think the FAA is overdue in publishing an Advisory Circular on this. It's only a matter of time before a poorly thought out camera mount causes an accident.
 
FastEddieB said:
In any event, I think the FAA is overdue in publishing an Advisory Circular on this. It's only a matter of time before a poorly thought out camera mount causes an accident.
Click to expand...

Problem is, the FAA will simply say "Don't!" to avoid any liability, and people will continue to do exactly what they're doing, even if it's stupid (i.e. mounting on a control surface like you mentioned).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Problem is, the FAA will simply say "Don't!" to avoid any liability, and people will continue to do exactly what they're doing, even if it's stupid (i.e. mounting on a control surface like you mentioned).
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: And as for mounting on the pitot tube, I honesty fail to see how that would make that wing stall first, but I'd be exponentially more worried about the added drag just simply ripping it off.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
:yeahthat: And as for mounting on the pitot tube, I honesty fail to see how that would make that wing stall first...
Click to expand...

Well, just imagine...

...if this...

250px-StallStrip01.jpg


...can cause a portion of the wing to stall first, what about a square box just slightly out in front of it?

I'm not saying a camera WILL do this, but it's hardly a reach for me to imagine it.
 
Ah, that's true, didn't think about that... I was thinking more along the lines of if the C208B can have this big thing stikin' out, then a small camera wouldn't do a whole lot more... :confused:

Pacific%20Wings%20Caravan%20N302PW%20%28white%29%28Grd%29%20HNL%20%28IN%29%2846%29-L.jpg
 
You're probably right in most cases.

But can we stipulate that that Cessna probably had extensive flight testing with that pod to ensure no ill effects?

We have something similar going on with externally mounted cameras stuck on here, there and everywhere, but with the owner/pilot playing the role of test pilot.

Don't know if that pod's installation entails any changes to the plane's Operating Limitations, but such limitations are not unheard of with externally mounted items.

I'll again stipulate that most of the mounts I've seen appear safe to my eye. I'll see if I can find photos of the two I've seen that I worried about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top