planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

Were you wearing a parachute? Looks like over 60 degrees of bank angle. If I'm not mistaken, the Mustang II is a plans-built experimental? If I ever get the time, money, and space I might consider a Zenith. I was at their factory a couple weekends ago for a tour. They use CNC machines to cut and bend their panel pieces. Even though I have an A&P it's been quite a few years since I've used it...not sure if I'd be confident making everything from scratch.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A Cessna 206 with the door removed is probably the best option available. They can even attach a wind deflector at the leading edge of the door to help cut the noise and turbulence.

If you want to get technical about it, research aerial photography via Google a little and you can learn how to determine for a specific camera sensor at a given altitude what the appropriate focal length is to make ground detail of a certain size visible.

For example each pixel on the sensor will "cover" a specific sized object on the ground. That is called "ground resolution". A longer focal length will make that a smaller object and a wider focal length makes it a larger sized object. Generally 12" is considered "standard" ground resolution and
1" is typically the highest. If you are shooting at 1800 foot AGL with a given lens, shooting at 3600 foot AGL requires two times the focal length to get the same ground resolution. But it is also true that a camera like a Nikon D4 that has a 68 lp/mm resolution sensor will image larger objects than a Nikon D810 with 103 lp/mm and that will be larger than a D3200 with 130 lp/mm (assuming the same altitude and the same focal length).

I have not tried this, but it claims to be a software tool to assist in all the needed calculations:

https://blog23d.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/uavphoto-a-simple-calculation-tool-for-aerial-photography/

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Zenith was having major issues. Some crashes.
Mustang is exp. Have the invert kit on engine. It a very cheap rock an roll. Plane. Wana do a tailslide in it. But think I'll reinforce the rudder an elevator first.

Smokin' Joe

Just as important is the pilot. Does he know how to properly "sideslip"? I hired a pilot to circle inside the cone of Mt. St. Helens in 1985 and had to explain what I wanted. It allows taking photos out the side with forward motion without looking through a distorted windshield. When I lived in Alaska I took 3D and infrared photos of landscapes looking for old mining, cabin, and trail sites so I could go back on ground and explore the areas. It's hard to find infra red film any more but it opens up a whole new perspective.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

If you can afford that why not charger a chopper? You can sit in the open door, feet on the skid and get some wonderful unobstructed shots. I know because having done a career in the broadcast news photography business I spent many hours with my feet on the skid. It's a wonderful way to shoot photos.

Focal length, well I wouldn't go over 200 but that's just me. If you have a bright sunny day I'd also use 1/1000 or at the least 1/500 because there will be camera motion, it can't be helped.

Best of luck and have fun!

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

I my experience when photographing from a Navy airplane, I would NOT recommend a polarizing filter. The problem is that the windows of the plane together with the filter may give you colored rings in your photos. You can try, but with caution. I would suggest a rubber hood that you can place against the window to keep out reflections. And do your best to make sure that the windows are clean before take off.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

i took my hood too. changes the angle of the shot. an lens against the window is best.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I had flight in an RAF trainer, purposely to photograph aerial landscape shots for a magazine.
Was told in no uncertain terms that a large camera would definitely NOT fit in the cockpit (2 seat); So I used a Fuji X-Pro 1, fitted with an 18-55
zoom. Believe me, it was a TIGHT fit in that cockpit- but tha fujicombo was the goods! Not only did I manage to do all the aerial shots, but I got some cracking shots of the instrument panel as well, and the artificial horizon. Pilot was most impressed ! I hasten to add that the camera was strapped tightly to my chest, so much so, that I could just get the camera up to my eye, it worked ! Believe me, it was so tight in the cockpit, it was a good job I knew the pilot well .....

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

i have no idea how many gopro pictures mounted on the plane. here one example was while being a chase plane.

this at about 700 800 ft. AGL on take off

ecurb1105

Used to do a lot of low level helicopter architectural work in the 1970s. Suggest you use something in the 50-200 range, maybe two bodies, one short lens, one long, zoom or prime depending on what you have. Shoot with window or door open or off. Do not shoot through windows. Use 500 or faster shutter speed, keep your hands, arms off the aircraft body and make sure to use a neck strap. Do not push the camera into the slipstream or you may loose it! Try to get a highwing airplane ans shoot to the side or rear oblique angle to avoid struts and landing gear. Happy Landings!

twowindsbear

Oh WOW!! The Bugatti in flight! Do you have any more pix of the aircraft?

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

Altitude could make a difference. A 24-70 worked fine and I've also used a 70-200 with a sp @ 2000.
I might suggest that you remove the lens hood. I found that it can extend to far out the window making it difficult to hold the camera steady.

RodM Loc: SE Virginia

28-90 sound good, it depends on how high you fly above the scenery. I got good results 2 weeks ago with my 24-105mm (full frame) on a Cessna above the Nazca lines in Peru.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

tons of them BOUT 17000 OF THEM LOL

ENGINE AIR INTAKES


ENGINES INPLACE