Aerial photography and the 170/180

[fitenfyr]

Hello all.
Tripped across this organization while researching an aircraft purchase for me and my partner.
We are looking at doing aerial photography and want an aircraft that has at least a 600lb usefull load, has no wing strut or is forward of the cabin door.
So far the 170/180 fits the bill pretty good.

Couple questions I had for current owners.

1. How hard is it to pull the right side door? Is it typical Cessna and a bolt with a cotter pin affair?
Can it be pulled in a few minutes placed in the back seat and flown with 2 onboard pretty easy?
2. How hard is it to fly as compared to a 172?
Easy trainer for someone with 0 time?
Would a 150 hour PP SEL (mostly 172/152 but also some R22) be able to transition into these without much hassle?
Yep that is me.
3. What is the performance like both slow and cruise?
I don't want to set speed records here, but I want to be able to travel across Washington state and back in a day with fuel and lav stops.
I also don't want to be fighting it at say 60kts indicated manuvering for a shot.
4. Lastly any recomendations on models best suited for this broad catagory.

We are not looking at your average real estate market work this would be for more artistic angles and such.

Anybody in Western Washington feel like a show and tell day for us?

Thank in advance

[zero.one.victor]

Being an amateur snapshotter (definitely not a professional), I can tell you that the wing struts are a definite factor on a 170, especially a ragwing (1948) which has V-struts. A possible airplane to consider might be a Cessna Cardinal, strutless highwing with huge doors.I don't know if they can (legally) be flown with doors removed. It shouldn't be too hard to find a good one for sale, the first-year models are quite a bit more affordable due to the 150-horse (instead of 180) engine. A cardinal probably won't be quite as comfortable at the low end of the speed envelope as the 170, but it should be close.
But if the wing-strut issue can be worked around, I'd much rather have a 170!! Be advised, being a taildragger, it'll keep ya on your toes more than a Cardinal.

Eric

[fitenfyr]

Eric,
So how did it get in the way?
Are you flying solo and shooting with the door on or off?
Our intention is to fly whatever with the door off and a photographer in the right seat. Orbits to the right and shoot off the trailing edge of the wing for all shots.
Does that sound like it would work?

The 177 was our first thought and still a very viable one. However like you said I am not sure I can legally operate one with the door off and that plane is not as setup for slow flight at the 170 or 180.
Of course I am not sure I can operate the any fixed wing with the door off unless we all have chutes on. That is a question to be answered after we find out the best plane for the job.

I also think the wheel strut will get in the way unless we get and RG and I am pretty sure they won't be good slow without the gear down.
I have an idea for a camera mount that would solve all our problems and be usable on any high wing Cessna, but it would involve an STC I think and for now we don't want that hassle.
I am going to have the admin move this to the other topic. Looks like I double posted on accident.

[zero.one.victor]

My photo op's are generally me and my photographer--also me! I'm trying to aim my zoomable point-and-shoot 35mm while flying the airplane. Probably not the safest, and definitely not the most convenient arrangement. I generally try to get the subject (usually another airplane) behind the strut thru the window, or else in front of the forward door post thru the winshield. Shooting down works great on a taildragger, the main gear is usually forward of the shot.
Like I said, I'm very definitely an amateur. Joe Moilanen does it professionally, and he's the authority as far as I'm concerned.
Your original post mentioned you having some R22 time. That'd probably be the best photo platform, IF you can pay the bills that come along with owning/operating one of them egg-beaters.

Eric

[zero.one.victor]

ooops

[fitenfyr]

Not an option anymore. I am 50lbs over the max seat weight.
I have also done enough flying in R22's to know I don't want to ever get in one again let alone own one.
I am going Turbine when the time comes to get a helicopter.

I am going to call Joe on Monday and setup a day to meet with us.

[mvivion]

The Cardinal has never been approved for flight with the door off, I don't believe. It's a very different door, in any case.

Most Cessna windows open as well. Take the little window stop off, and open the window in flight, and it will fly up against the wing, and stay out of your way.

I'm not sure about the 170, but the Skywagons all require a blast deflector for operation with the door off. Since the doors are essentially the same........

I wouldn't worry about taking the door off. We've done air to air with the photog in the back seat to start, and the front seat removed. Takeoff, and the photog moves forward to a shooting position. Or just shoot from the front seat.

Mike Vivion

[fitenfyr]

Mike,
So where can I find one of these blast deflectors?
Also I take it you had the photographer in a harness or did he/she wear a chute?
If so where did you get the harness and how did it attach to the aircraft?

This is the kind of info I am looking for. First hand stuff.

You guys are great. The 170 is looking better all the time.

[mvivion]

Oops,

Sorry, my point was, DON'T take the door off, just open the window. That way, the photographer can move around to get the shot. I'm not wild about people being unbelted in flight, but it's legal and people do it all the time.

As to blast deflectors, I have no idea where they come from. They are pretty small, and attach to the door hinge points. I'd get in touch with someone who's doing skydiving in a 182. They use them, and I suspect the thing would fit a 170.

Personally, I would give it a try in a Cessna with the window open, and see if you can function that way. If so, it'll be a safer, and more comfortable way of doing business.

Mike Vivion

[GAHorn]

The 170 does not require any additional equipment to fly with one door removed. The aircraft is approved for flight with one door removed.

[fitenfyr]

We plan on trying with just the window open, but our future plans and equipment may require that we have more space in which the photographer can position the camera.

Like I said before we are not looking at the average photographs for fun or the more "technical" type of work (thermography, survey etc.). We are looking at more artistic and advertising kinds of images.

For example we may need a very wide angle shot of a river bed to capture all the scenery in one shot.
This may mean that the strut or window seals may show up in the image unless we can get the camera out of the cabin pointed down and back.

Just and example of our thought process not anything we have actually proven as of yet.
I am also in the process of sketching out an idea I have for a mount that would extend out the side of the aircraft and "fly" between the strut and the cabin of a high wing trike like the 172/182/150/152 etc...
The process to get it certified may or may not make it worthwhile, but the design is pretty straight forward and simplistic. (I know those two things alone mean the FAA would require hours of testing. )

We plan on taking up a 172 soon as I get a good light day and doing some test work together to see if we can get the results we want.

My partner has already done some work from a 172 out the window so he has an idea of where we need to go.

[mvivion]

Jason,

Take a look at http://www.airphotona.com

Jim Wark has taken many thousands of images from his Husky, solo. He flies with the door open. On these aircraft, and Cubs, you can open the window/door in flight, then close it.

The quality and range of Jim's images will tell you something about whether you can work around the struts on a strut braced high wing airplane.

As I noted earlier, if you remove the right front seat from a Cessna, seat the photog in a rear seat for takeoff and landing, they will have a great range of view from just the open window.

In any case, have fun, and fly safely.

Mike

[GAHorn]

I found the reference: The 170 series is approved for flight with one cabin door removed in accordance with Advisory Circular 105-2C, Appendix 2, dated 1/2/91. No additional equipment, spoilers, etc. is required.

Some FSDO's may require that a Form 337 be completed (although I personally think that's overkill in light of their prior approval via Advisory Circular which does not make such a requirement.) A logbook entry should be made referencing the AC.

[fitenfyr]

Mike,
That is one of the photographers that inspired my partner into this.

Our disadvantage right now is that I am the only pilot of the two of us and Steve is the photographer.
So we need to fly with 2 people for awhile at least until we can get Steve trained and capable of doing solo work.

The Cubs, Huskys and such just do not have the useful load for a 280lb pilot and a 180lb (or so) passenger. We wouldn't have any room for gas. Unless we invested a lot more $$$$ into a SuperCub or similar.

Thanks for the info on the door. I ran into a gentleman today that has time in a 170 and he filled me in a bit about the aircraft and performance.
He also gave me a few good sources to talk to about our mount ideas and such.

[zero.one.victor]

Who'd you run into? I know a lot of the local (Puget Sound area) 170'ers.
I see that you live in Port Orchard. I fly into the little Port Orchard airstrip occasionally just for the fun of doing it. I think it's on Sydney Road (?), just north of the head of Henderson Bay (and that vacationland for wayward women at Purdy!). I never see anyone around there anymore. There used to be a few airplanes tied down outside, but no more. Do you know if there's many planes hangared there? It's kind of a cool little strip, and pretty close to a large population, you think it'd be more active.

Eric