<![CDATA[Aerial Photography/Video?]]>This is something I've been thinking about since last summer. I talked to Charlie briefly last fall and got the preliminary OK to fly an R/C camera rig at the track during events.

I've only shot aerial video once before, on a plane that was 100% inappropriate for the purpose - but the resulting video was still pretty damn cool. If I were to do it right, I'd probably build a plane similar to what this guy uses: http://www.whispershots.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/10967324_Q9hwDb#!i=766464221&k=rcHpA

I wanted to see if there was interest or concerns from the members/racers here before putting time & money into this project. Anyone care to chime in?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/20738/aerial-photography-videoRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 02:09:46 GMTThu, 19 Jan 2012 16:15:37 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:44:02 GMT]]>

tl@altimas.net;326066 wrote:
Sure - keep in mind this was on a small 34" wingspan aerobatic plane - the one I would build would be much bigger, smoother, quieter, and uh, easier to land...

Apologies for the huge file, 174mb.

Right Click > Save Target As:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44928412/MVI_4690.AVI

Thats really cool! I'm sure it would be great with quieter and more stable plane.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314343https://fargostreet.com/post/314343Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:44:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:05:55 GMT]]>not so much for drag racing, but autocrossing would be a blast to see from an aerial view.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314326https://fargostreet.com/post/314326Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:05:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:36:07 GMT]]>

PSiedTSi;326080 wrote:
So pathetic. That's precisely why I was curious why a large policy was needed...I figured there were multiple examples of it, but I guess I was expecting some plane crashing into a building and somehow burning it down causing a boatload of damage or something. I should have guessed it was for potential lawsuits...:rolleyes:

Yup, wish it was for something like that but sadly it's to cover someone suing.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314324https://fargostreet.com/post/314324Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:36:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:03:35 GMT]]>

GarageAlchemist;326079 wrote:
that was taken on Oak st in north fargo. You live in that area? My parents live on Oak.Good eye and yep, 1000 block on Oak.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314323https://fargostreet.com/post/314323Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:03:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:45:42 GMT]]>

Top End;326078 wrote:
Insurance is more for liability coverage in case of injuring someone. Other tracks have shown me incidents that seems minor such as a bump and cuts results in a suit for a few million.

So pathetic. That's precisely why I was curious why a large policy was needed...I figured there were multiple examples of it, but I guess I was expecting some plane crashing into a building and somehow burning it down causing a boatload of damage or something. I should have guessed it was for potential lawsuits...:rolleyes:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314321https://fargostreet.com/post/314321Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:45:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:36:55 GMT]]>that was taken on Oak st in north fargo. You live in that area? My parents live on Oak.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314320https://fargostreet.com/post/314320Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:36:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:04:15 GMT]]>Insurance is more for liability coverage in case of injuring someone. Other tracks have shown me incidents that seems minor such as a bump and cuts results in a suit for a few million.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314319https://fargostreet.com/post/314319Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:04:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:43:09 GMT]]>

PSiedTSi;326075 wrote:
Just curious, why would one would need that much coverage to fly a model airplane?

It sounds like he has it, but holy crap, that sounds insanely excessive lol. Shows you the state of this country, though.Thanks for posting that excerpt! I'm sure the policy is designed to cover even the guys flying monster 60%+ scale gassers, they could definitely do some damage...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314317https://fargostreet.com/post/314317Sun, 22 Jan 2012 02:43:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:57:08 GMT]]>

Top End;326073 wrote:
Wasn't able to look at it on my phone. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enough, you would need liability insurance in the $500,000+ range.

Just curious, why would one would need that much coverage to fly a model airplane?

The per occurrence limit of coverage available by this policy is $2,500,000 involving bodily injury and/or property damage.

It sounds like he has it, but holy crap, that sounds insanely excessive lol. Shows you the state of this country, though.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314316https://fargostreet.com/post/314316Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:57:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:52:01 GMT]]>Wasn't able to look at it on my phone. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enough, you would need liability insurance in the $500,000+ range.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314314https://fargostreet.com/post/314314Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:52:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:03:13 GMT]]>Here is the policy posted on the AMA website:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/500-a.pdf

Nothing specified as far as location is concerned.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314311https://fargostreet.com/post/314311Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:03:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:21:35 GMT]]>

Top End;326067 wrote:
Actually mentioned this to my insurance at a meeting today. YOu would have to get some form of liability insurance to cover any incidents and if recording any vehicles going down track or from below a set altitude you would need to have a waiver/release for those parties to sign.Great, thanks for checking into this! I know I have some insurance coverage as an AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) member, but I will need to confirm it would cover a site like the track.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314309https://fargostreet.com/post/314309Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:21:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:06:01 GMT]]>Actually mentioned this to my insurance at a meeting today. YOu would have to get some form of liability insurance to cover any incidents and if recording any vehicles going down track or from below a set altitude you would need to have a waiver/release for those parties to sign.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314308https://fargostreet.com/post/314308Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:06:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:02:09 GMT]]>Sure - keep in mind this was on a small 34" wingspan aerobatic plane - the one I would build would be much bigger, smoother, quieter, and uh, easier to land...

Apologies for the huge file, 174mb.

Right Click > Save Target As:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44928412/MVI_4690.AVI

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314307https://fargostreet.com/post/314307Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:02:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:21:04 GMT]]>Can you post up the aerial footage that you took before? I would like to see it.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314306https://fargostreet.com/post/314306Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:21:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:58:12 GMT]]>

kylush;326058 wrote:
I think it would be sweet if it doesn't effect the racing, like crashing on the track or into anyones vehicle. Probably a pretty low chance of that happening I'm guessing?Agreed, pretty low chance of something happening. The plane will be a big, stable floater - easy to fly and will have a pretty gentle glide slope. The biggest safety factor is altitude - fly "2 or 3 mistakes high" as they say, but then a "google earth" type shot isn't going to be very dynamic or interesting to watch either.

The majority of the plane's construction will be foam and light ply, but the battery, motor and camera are pretty solid.

We have any video editing gurus on here?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314304https://fargostreet.com/post/314304Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:58:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:21:04 GMT]]>That's pretty neat

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314300https://fargostreet.com/post/314300Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:21:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Aerial Photography/Video? on Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:02:50 GMT]]>I think it would be sweet if it doesn't effect the racing, like crashing on the track or into anyones vehicle. Probably a pretty low chance of that happening I'm guessing?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/314299https://fargostreet.com/post/314299Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:02:50 GMT