My CNC machined wing tip insta 360 camera pole mount

[nickw9815]

I was not a fan of any of the pole mounts available online. A lot of the big brands use a poor design that does not contour to any curvature on the wing with out putting the bolts or rod in bending, and they have a larger form factor. My goal was a low profile mount that I could leave on when not using the pole mount, and have it be able to fit the contour of a wing. Additionally with the spacing of the wing tip bolts, I found making a slightly larger allowed me to utilize 4 bolts per mount.

As for the pole mount, most folks run a standard 3/4" tube that will resonate at specific RPMs. The primary vibration comes from propeller imbalance (at a frequency of 1x the RPM) and the engine firing (at 2x the rpm frequency). If you're flying at high angles of attack or yaw you might notice an increase to the 2x rpm frequency from asymmetric airflow over the propeller. In a perfect world, the camera pole mount would be stiff enough that it would have a resonance frequency higher than all of the engine and prop vibe, but this can only be achieved with a very stubby pole or using high modulus carbon fiber (way to pricey). I ran some calcs to see what the resonance frequency would be of various different pole sizes, and none of the metal ones would avoid hitting the resonance frequency. So I opted for a 3/4" pole with a wood core bonded on the inside to reduce amplitude of vibrations. Results work well, it does resonant at ~1100 and ~2200 rpm but the amplitude is much less than when I had just a hollow rod.

 

[lucas2696]

Care to share the files? I'd love to have a set of these made.

 

[ronrapp]

I'd be interested in that as well. Nice engineering! I think the mount you designed is lower profile than the one from Flight Flix; I'm not sure how much drag it creates, but every little bit helps.

 

[lucas2696]

I'd be interested in that as well. Nice engineering! I think the mount you designed is lower profile than the one from Flight Flix; I'm not sure how much drag it creates, but every little bit helps.

Just as a data point, the Flight Flix mount *maybe* cost me 1-2 knots of top speed, basically nil. I just leave it on even when I’m not using it.

 

[ronrapp]

Just as a data point, the Flight Flix mount *maybe* cost me 1-2 knots of top speed, basically nil. I just leave it on even when I’m not using it.

I do the same. My primary concern is someone running into the pole and bending something or hurting themselves. Mine's mounted on top of the wingtip rather than below. I like that perspective better.

--Ron

 

[Estevanb]

I was not a fan of any of the pole mounts available online. A lot of the big brands use a poor design that does not contour to any curvature on the wing with out putting the bolts or rod in bending, and they have a larger form factor. My goal was a low profile mount that I could leave on when not using the pole mount, and have it be able to fit the contour of a wing. Additionally with the spacing of the wing tip bolts, I found making a slightly larger allowed me to utilize 4 bolts per mount.

As for the pole mount, most folks run a standard 3/4" tube that will resonate at specific RPMs. The primary vibration comes from propeller imbalance (at a frequency of 1x the RPM) and the engine firing (at 2x the rpm frequency). If you're flying at high angles of attack or yaw you might notice an increase to the 2x rpm frequency from asymmetric airflow over the propeller. In a perfect world, the camera pole mount would be stiff enough that it would have a resonance frequency higher than all of the engine and prop vibe, but this can only be achieved with a very stubby pole or using high modulus carbon fiber (way to pricey). I ran some calcs to see what the resonance frequency would be of various different pole sizes, and none of the metal ones would avoid hitting the resonance frequency. So I opted for a 3/4" pole with a wood core bonded on the inside to reduce amplitude of vibrations. Results work well, it does resonant at ~1100 and ~2200 rpm but the amplitude is much less than when I had just a hollow rod.

View attachment 114863

Hey Nick, I am experimenting with a hollow carbon fiber tube. 2mm thick, 1m long and 20mm OD.

I want to try a hollow tube to run power through it, so I dont need to worry with camera battery. Here some pictures:




My plan is to drill a whole in the fiberglass wingtip and permanently attach a hollow 20mm ID carbon fiber tube as a "sleeve" to the camera pole. Using the headset plug to automatically connect power to the pole.

So whenever I want to film, I remove a cap from the sleeve tube and stick the pole into the sleeve.

I will post updates as I progress. Waiting on epoxy and USB-C connector components to power the insta360.

 

[nickw9815]

Powering the pole is clever. With my current mounting design, I did not want to touch carbon fiber. My current method clamps the pole which is the worst load path for carbon, the mass and stiffness savings on the carbon pole are not actually that high (only way to get the first mode above engine frequencies is high modulus which is ridiculously expensive), and aluminum is very inspectable for fatigue or damage while carbon is not. I do love composite projects ( I design structural composites for my day job ), but aluminum is so simple for this.

As for the people who want these, I am happy to send you the step files and drawings. I updated the design slightly to remove internal threads and use standard 1/4" bolts which made it a bit cheaper. You're welcome to machine it your self, or I could make a few of them (AL 6061-T6 with anodization) and sell them (buyer assumes all liability and risk) - would probably cost me about $200 for 2 of the mounts (not including pole). If either interests you feel free to dm me.

Also not shown in the image but I laser cut a 1mm adhesive backed silicone pad to go between the mount and aircraft.

Also agree that drag penalty is negligible, but I want to leave mounts on and have it not be too ugly!

 

[lucas2696]

I do the same. My primary concern is someone running into the pole and bending something or hurting themselves. Mine's mounted on top of the wingtip rather than below. I like that perspective better.

--Ron

View attachment 115136

Thankfully a 3/4 inch pitot tube cover with a RBF flag fits right on the pole, I always install one when I’m parked. Though, at a big fly in I’d probably remove it just in case.

 

[nickw9815]

Enough people reached out that I figured I would order some material and machine some more. If you're interested shoot me a dm.

 

[MacCool]

I use the FlightFlix mounts on the wigtip underside with their 36 inch aluminum pole. Works well except for some resonance shaking. I addressed that by wrapping longitudinally with duct tape and then sliding some 1” marine-grade heat shrink tubing over that , then hitting it with a heat gun. Definite improvement. I’ll see how it goes for awhile but I’m contemplating filling the inside of the tube with some expanding foam and maybe some lead shot. I’m not committed to that process, fearing rupturing the pole. We’ll see.

 

[nickw9815]

I use the FlightFlix mounts on the wigtip underside with their 36 inch aluminum pole. Works well except for some resonance shaking. I addressed that by wrapping longitudinally with duct tape and then sliding some 1” marine-grade heat shrink tubing over that , then hitting it with a heat gun. Definite improvement. I’ll see how it goes for awhile but I’m contemplating filling the inside of the tube with some expanding foam and maybe some lead shot. I’m not committed to that process, fearing rupturing the pole. We’ll see.

Don't add lead shot - you want something to dampen the vibes and not add mass. A wood fill or expanding foam will work well. Wood is best because it dampens super well

 

[Kiwifly]

I do the same. My primary concern is someone running into the pole and bending something or hurting themselves. Mine's mounted on top of the wingtip rather than below. I like that perspective better.

--Ron

View attachment 115136

Indeed, and you get to capture the full image including the tail.

 

[Kiwifly]

I was not a fan of any of the pole mounts available online. A lot of the big brands use a poor design that does not contour to any curvature on the wing with out putting the bolts or rod in bending, and they have a larger form factor. My goal was a low profile mount that I could leave on when not using the pole mount, and have it be able to fit the contour of a wing. Additionally with the spacing of the wing tip bolts, I found making a slightly larger allowed me to utilize 4 bolts per mount.

As for the pole mount, most folks run a standard 3/4" tube that will resonate at specific RPMs. The primary vibration comes from propeller imbalance (at a frequency of 1x the RPM) and the engine firing (at 2x the rpm frequency). If you're flying at high angles of attack or yaw you might notice an increase to the 2x rpm frequency from asymmetric airflow over the propeller. In a perfect world, the camera pole mount would be stiff enough that it would have a resonance frequency higher than all of the engine and prop vibe, but this can only be achieved with a very stubby pole or using high modulus carbon fiber (way to pricey). I ran some calcs to see what the resonance frequency would be of various different pole sizes, and none of the metal ones would avoid hitting the resonance frequency. So I opted for a 3/4" pole with a wood core bonded on the inside to reduce amplitude of vibrations. Results work well, it does resonant at ~1100 and ~2200 rpm but the amplitude is much less than when I had just a hollow rod.

View attachment 114863

Can you capture the entire fuselage including the tail ?

 

[MacCool]

Don't add lead shot - you want something to dampen the vibes and not add mass. A wood fill or expanding foam will work well. Wood is best because it dampens super well

i want to address the resonance frequency. Adding mass will do that if the stiffness measures I’ve already taken prove to be insufficient. The tape and marine grade heat shrink were easy to do and seem to be pretty effective so far, but if they prove not to be, Inserting a dowel turned down to the right diameter and some epoxy would be another thing to consider although I’m optimistic that it will be unnecessary.

 

[nickw9815]

Can you capture the entire fuselage including the tail ?

If I mount on top of the wing, yes!

 

[Kiwifly]

If I mount on top of the wing, yes!

I much prefer that perspective.

 

[nickw9815]

i want to address the resonance frequency. Adding mass will do that if the stiffness measures I’ve already taken prove to be insufficient. The tape and marine grade heat shrink were easy to do and seem to be pretty effective so far, but if they prove not to be, Inserting a dowel turned down to the right diameter and some epoxy would be another thing to consider although I’m optimistic that it will be unnecessary.

I am not sure I follow your plan. Resonance frequency is proportional to sqrt(stiffness/mass). So just adding mass (lead shot) will drop the resonance frequency? In theory if you made it so low (resonant at ~100rpm) it could act isolated. The tape + heat shrink is good because it acts as damper so it reduces amplitude of vibrations when the resonance frequency is hit. The wood fill (dowel + expanding glue) is an effective damper for minimal mass increase.

 

[planenutz]

There are a lots of ways to skin a cat.

These mounts took minimal time to make, are light, cost nothing (made from left-over material) and hold the camera mount perfectly still. They've been tested to Vne and both high and low G's. They also hold the Triangle I made for aerobatics, when I want to use it. Speed loss... zero.



My point is - you don't need to get too carried away making mounts for a camera.

Nick - your mounts are beautifully made and very sexy indeed. They look like they could handle a 500 Ibs bomb. Are they scalable to a slightly smaller profile?

 

[ronrapp]

These mounts took minimal time to make, are light, cost nothing (made from left-over material) and hold the camera mount perfectly still. They've been tested to Vne and both high and low G's. They also hold the Triangle I made for aerobatics, when I want to use it. Speed loss... zero.

I'm trying to picture how the pole would connect to those brackets. Do you have a picture of that, by chance?

--Ron

 

[planenutz]

I'm trying to picture how the pole would connect to those brackets. Do you have a picture of that, by chance?

--Ron

Let me see what I can find in the way of photos, but the answer is 2 x AN3-4A bolts.

 

[planenutz]

Here's a photo I found of the mount installed. For this flight I had two cameras mounted so I made a stay that went back to the first screw under the wingtip leading edge. The idea was to dampen any vertical vibration that might occurr, but it wasn't necessary.

The mount is rock steady and extends about 2 feet forward of the wing. I now use an Insta 360 X5 as the primary camera and sometimes will mount a GoPro 12 out there as well, depending on what I'm doing.

There are a handful of videos on YT under the handle HANGAR_X1 if you would like to see the outcome - and some of our local scenery.

 

[ronrapp]

Wow that’s quite a set up! Thanks for the photo — I love how you can mount two cameras on there.

 

[planenutz]

Wow that’s quite a set up! Thanks for the photo — I love how you can mount two cameras on there.

Thank you sir.

Yes, sometimes you need the 360 camera for the variety and then when you're in close you need a single view camera, so the GoPro 12 gets mounted sideways for that purpose. I can get some nice HD shots this way but subject placement is then critical. It's use is limited in this way but you can get some nice results.

Bizarrely, one of the nicer clips we captured recently was off the wing of the DA-62 using my wife's iPhone from the right seat. I was gutted. You can see that clip in the "Flying with Friends" video I've posted. I don't like Apple products and I give my wife heck about her support for them... but I had to eat some humble pie after that flight.

 

[Kiwifly]

I find the simple spud mount to be the best on the wingtip without a pole. This was shot from that.

I also have a pole mount but actually prefer the simple spud. this was from a pole.

 

[planenutz]

I watched your Mach Loop video soon after you posted it. Loved it. It helped make sense of all those amazing photos I've seen of jets zooming through the pass. I always assumed the name of the Mach Loop was associated with the speed of the aircraft, so I learned something! Thanks!

 

[nickw9815]

I made a slightly updated version that is slimmer. Very easy to remove the pole and just leave the clevis behind. Plates are also more compliant to fit slightly closer to the leading edge where the wing curves more. I've had a few people reach out with interest in these, so I had a few spare sets machined. PM me if interested.

 

[Pilot135pd]

This guy should attach his camera to the (hopefully non heated) pitot tube on the top of his wingtip !!

 

[Pilot135pd]

The mount is rock steady and extends about 2 feet forward of the wing. I now use an Insta 360 X5 as the primary camera...

How far forward of the wing does the camera have to be so it works correctly and deletes the pole from the video?

 

[KMMUflyer]

Another approach to this.

SuperCubDriver mounted his bearings """inside""" the wingtip, bolted to the last rib. The only thing external when the rod is stowed in the wingtip, is a 25mm button on the end of the rod, flush with the wingtip. The only thing external when it is in use is the 25mm rod and the camera. Power runs through the rod.

Scrolling down, in the link below, there are several photos of the plane showing the rod and camera.

The videos themselves, are jaw dropping...

Post in thread 'Another extended weekend trip' https://vansairforce.net/threads/another-extended-weekend-trip.235460/post-1858490

 

[planenutz]

It will work correctly at any length but naturally the longer the pole the more likely you are to get a vibration. The current models of camera are very good at removing most of the shake you can get with some of the lighter poles though.

To get the pole to be invisible to the camera you need it to be reasonably small diameter - probably under 1" dia (but don't quote me). Again the latest cameras have some editing features which help with this and for the most part it's not something you need to worry about. With my mount I do get a little smudge on the video from the mount when I'm taking the shot looking aft however the rest of the time you don't see this smudge because you're typically looking forward or sideways.