Belly Cam

[FastEddieB]

I think I posted recently about my dual-cup RAM mount for my iPad Mini:

 

 

I always like a "belt and suspenders" approach - remember, with altitude the pressure differential the suction cup relies on decreases - probably trivial up to 10,000', but a factor nonetheless.

 

Here's how I secured to my KTM:

 

 

Suction cup, bungees holding against the tank (with a rubber bushing) and a tether as well.

 

RAM suction cups are only about $12. I think the GoPro suction cup as the main mount (if you already have one), then two RAM suction cups with bungees holding the camera snug against the plane would be a good, secure option. A lot cheaper than replacing a GoPro or paying a claim to someone injured on the ground!

 

 

Probably linked this before, but here's the result of the KTM experiment (best full screen, HD and volume UP!):

 

[WmInce]

. . . "A suction cup is not reasonable precaution." . . .

 

With all due respect Sir, who says . . . besides you?

[Doug G.]

As far as insurance coverage, I am not completely certain mounting anything on the outside of a plane with a suction cup is approved by the FAA. If your insurance company questions it you are probably on your own. (This may be different if you are experimental.)

Can anyone site any other situation where a pilot can legally temporarily mount anything to the outside airframe of an SLSA?

[FlyingMonkey]

 

 

With all due respect Sir, who says . . . besides you?

 

Yeah, I would say that an attachment method rated by the manufacturer for speeds greater than the aircraft is capable would be reasonable, whether that method is a bolt, adhesive, or a suction cup.

[John R]

Talked to a fellow at Ellington Field earlier this year who was running his lamborgini in the Texas 1/2 mile shootout. He had four gopros mounted on the car with suction cups.His best run was in excess of 250 mph. I asked him if he had ever lost one. He replied no and mentioned that his plane flies right at 300 and he always has one on it with no problems.

[kentuckynet]

I left my gopro mount under my wing from one page trip to just prior to the next years trip and began looking around the house for it and realized i had left it attached.Went out to the plane and looked unde the wing and "nothing there"

 

I have been searching all over the us for it (oklahoma has been the toughest state to walk thru),,,,if i had only tethered it. I did write on it if found return to roger lee.

 

I dont have insurance and if it hit someone (always fly high if you think parts will fall off) im betting they wont know where it came from.

 

All jokes aside mine did fall off after being there for about one year!

 

Neat spot to mount the camera im thinking maybe on the prop next time.

[Doug G.]

So how long does a suction cup mount last? Can we expect an SB from GoPro on that?

[WmInce]

This is the point . . . where the rest of the posts become pure fun!

Next.

[Roger Lee]

Well I went out and did my tether test on the Gopro. I was hoping it would stream better in the wind, but because of the irregular shape it flops around at 50 mph and worse at 100 mph. Looks like it might be better to just let it go or put some type of soft pad on around it so it could bang around some without hurting the plane or itself.

[24-8003-ms]

With my head hanging under the belly of the plane, it looked like very little flair ... what flap setting were you using?

[FlyingMonkey]

With my head hanging under the belly of the plane, it looked like very little flair ... what flap setting were you using?

 

15 degrees. I have found the CT lands flatter than a lot of other airplanes. There is a flair, but nowhere near as steep as a 172.

[GravityKnight]

15 degrees. I have found the CT lands flatter than a lot of other airplanes. There is a flair, but nowhere near as steep as a 172.

 

Now that you mention it. I was flying a CTLS today (usually fly, and much prefer the CTSW, but it's broke) and I noticed I was flaring a fair amount "harder" in the LS vs. the SW to arrest the fall. It has been a few months since I flew the LS, and now days I'm pretty in tune with the SW and the difference between the two planes is a lot more noticeable now. In my opinion there is noticeable amount of difference between these two planes in general...

[WmInce]

15 degrees. I have found the CT lands flatter than a lot of other airplanes. There is a flair, but nowhere near as steep as a 172.

 

Andy, just a little less than a 3-point landing (slightly nose up)?

[FastEddieB]

I can't seem to find it right now, but I have recollections of a video by Bobby Cau of a grass field landing in a CT.

 

I seem to recall his landing was appreciably more nose up.

 

Can anyone remember what thread that was in?

[FlyingMonkey]

Andy, just a little less than a 3-point landing (slightly nose up)?

 

There is definite flare, but I think if you flare it like a 172 you might scrape the tail under fin. Definitely should not be a three point, though I have done that too. Honestly, my flare is probably not as pronounced as it should be, getting the stick all the way back and holding off the nosewheel is something I am working on and have struggled a bit with.

 

The technique I was taught is to hold the nose-down approach attitude until three feet over the runway, then rotate to arrest the descent, approximately wings level. Then as sink starts, begin pulling stick back into the flare with the stick full back or nearly so at touchdown.

 

I have found that it works better for me if instead of a two step technique (arrest descent/flare) if I more smoothly start pulling back in the arrest porting and then just smoothly transition into the flare as speed bleeds off. It's pretty much the same thing, just less of a "this then that" and more of a "this moving into that" technique.

 

I will concede that I might be landing flatter than optimal. But the CT definitely quits flying abruptly, and I'd rather land slightly flat at the correct speed than have it drop out from under me. My first landing in this airplane did that, I didn't like it. At all.

[FastEddieB]

This is not directed towards Andy or anyone else in particular at all - it was just posted to the Pilots of America site and I thought it both fun and educational:

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

There is definite flare, but I think if you flare it like a 172 you might scrape the tail under fin...

 

If your video is representative then your fin is quite safe

[FlyingMonkey]

If your video is representative then your fin is quite safe

 

Jeez, tough crowd here.

[FastEddieB]

 

 

Jeez, tough crowd here.

 

And you love it!

[Ed Cesnalis]

What do you think, which design can be flared more without a tail strike?

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

the major difference is the tail. the SW has a small tail and elevator. never flown one. the CTLSi has to be willfully and intentionally flared with distinct back pull on the stick or the nose wheel will touch first and thats when the big trouble starts and ends.

 

The CTLSi is a bit heavier in the engine too. Morden has an SW so if he really wants to see what happens when the nose is not pulled up, he should try an LSi.

 

The 2005 CTSW had a smaller tail but in 2006 the tail got enlarged and the trim tab went full span. The big difference between the late model SW and LS is that the LS is stretched which reduces tail clearance.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

 

the major difference is the tail. the SW has a small tail and elevator. never flown one. the CTLSi has to be willfully and intentionally flared with distinct back pull on the stick or the nose wheel will touch first and thats when the big trouble starts and ends.

 

The CTLSi is a bit heavier in the engine too. Morden has an SW so if he really wants to see what happens when the nose is not pulled up, he should try an LSi.

 

I would think with the longer tail, the LS would need a smaller stabilator to generate the same forces, since it's farther from the center of lift and therefore is a bigger "lever". Otherwise the LS would be more sensitive in pitch than the SW, which I don't think is the case, is it?

[Ed Cesnalis]

I would think with the longer tail, the LS would need a smaller stabilator to generate the same forces, since it's farther from the center of lift and therefore is a bigger "lever". Otherwise the LS would be more sensitive in pitch than the SW, which I don't think is the case, is it?

 

Going to smaller feathers would negate some of the effect of stretching the design. Its the moment arm length ( and CG envelope ) that reduces sensitivity, the SW is more sensitive because the LS is a stretched version with a longer moment arm. The stretched LS might generate more force but it has to travel a greater distance.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

 

I have never flown in an SW, any year model. But as you know I own and fly a CTLSi. The tail is HUGE. the elevator is quick and responsive. But the engine weighs more. When flaps are changed up or down the nose pitches a lot. When landing, with trim neutral, the stick has to be pulled back half to three-quarters for the nosewheel to be raised enough to land well. the nose doesnt get high, it drops quickly.

 

Does that sound like your plane?

 

Sounds similar. The pitch change with flaps is very significant...with full flaps it looks like you are pointing at the ground. The nose does have to be held off. When you say "neutral trim" do you mean trim in the middle of the range, or trim set to neutralize the controls? If the former, you might try some trim on base or final to relive pressures and help you hold off the nose a little easier.

 

I think you have said you don't trim for landing, but I think it would really help you.

[Roger Lee]

I trim for take off once in the air, for cruise and for landings and approaches. I put my whole hand over the front of the throttle and use my first finger to make adjustments to the pitch. It should only need a little tweaking. I never have stick pressure during any maneuver. I can make a throttle and pitch adjustment at the same time.