For those of you that are interested, I,ve posted a few of my first pics using my thunder tiger trainer to hang a pencam from.
Here's a link to some of the better pics:-
http://www.btinternet.com/~texy/flying.htm

Those pics look great. I have one of those X-10 cameras I am trying to figure how to build into my trainer. A guy in our club has GPS and autopilots in a bashed SIG Senior (extended wings, altered front for camera, and barn-door ailerons) that he has been playing with. There is a company out of Austrailia that makes a REALLY small cam, but I am not sure the name.

How much does the camera you are using weigh? How have you mounted it into your plane?

Zee

The camera weighs 68 grams including the two AAA batteries.
I have also got an extra battery pack to power the 555 timer, but that will change - I will add a lead to power from the rx battery pack. The plane is a little unforgiving with the extra weight, plus of course, I,m still learning to fly .The camera is suspended from elastic bands from the undercarridge bars, but is also wrapped in foam to add a bit of protection. I may add a few more pictures showing the plane and camera mount, but its very low tech! The main problem is isolating the vibration from the engine - you can see on most of the pictures a kind of (unwanted)wave effect.
Texy

I picked up (used) a flying quaker model for just the reason of taking aerial photos..

the reason i am going to use this is its a huge but light plane with VERY little wing loading... so i have 2 options...

put a heavier cam (video) and fly it around that way or stick a small digital and kill the engine and glide around for the pictures.

I already tested the gliding of it (after i spun the prop off the engine ) and if i get a thermal it will stay up forever

when i take it up next I will have the camera ready (i took a cheapy digital and stripped the case off and rigged the buttons to a servo for this) and will post some pics ... I also have a few pic I will post when the camera was in a little .25 trainer (man that thing was a dog with the added weight)

Texy, the picture crispness looks about the best I've seen in those inexpensive pen-cams. Most look fuzzy at best. I am however a little perplexed. Either my eyes are playing a trick or there appears to be a 'glass ball' effect going on. The pictures look like there is some optical distortion (as though a curved glass is in front of the middle part). Is this something done in photoshop or some other program or is this the output the camera always does? I'm not trying to diss them as the clearity was much better than the other's I've seen and I'd like to get one providing it won't have those bubbles. I'd rather send a small, 68 gram $50 pencam up than my bigger, heavier and more costly digital. Thanks.

if you are refering to the "wavyness" then that is due to the engine vibration.

hence why in my post i noted that I would cut the engine and glide for th epictur taking.

Joe B,
unstable is right - vibration is a major problem with these photo's. It could be that and/or a fact of the relatively high exposure time as these were taken in the late evening with
failing light. Also consider that the camera was pointing to the
left of the fuse (ie not staight forward/backward), and obviously
the plane is moving, so that could have had a distortion effect also.
As for the focus, I feel that there is still room for improvement.
It needs to be adjusted a little more for further focus. If you look at the second from last pic, the focus looks a little better than most of the rest. This pic was taken quite low down as the plane was coming in to land. I,ll see how the weather holds out today at my other flying site (a more interesting site, pictorially).
Texy

Yes, wavy is a better description. I'm glad to hear it's a vibration issue becaues that's easier to fix that poor optics As far as focus, I've seen a few of the pen-cam aerials and most are not much more than 320X480 with poor focus, color saturation, etc. This looks much crisper which is good!