Flir....flir.....
Flir....flir.....
What do you want to use it for and where in the world will it be used? Police surveillance? SAR? Do you need one optimised for seeing humans? Or is this less about the pure FLIR capabilities and more about the turret/mountings/integration with TV etc?
Our SAR ones are STARQ provided by FLIR Systems UK - a Quantum Well Infrared Photodetector with a Stirling Rotary Cooling Pump. Optimised for locating a person in the water. It's V good.
Our SAR ones are STARQ provided by FLIR Systems UK - a Quantum Well Infrared Photodetector with a Stirling Rotary Cooling Pump. Optimised for locating a person in the water. It's V good.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMS - Both are capable products. However, look at product support and that will tell you which way to go. I don't know where you are based and that may affect your choice. I would agree that the MX15 range is easier to control, but I believe you still can't put an MX15 on an MX15i mounting if you needed to due to the MX15i failing. The is due to the CEU being built into the MX15i itself. However, that may have changed since I did my research and may be dependant upon how you mounted the MX15i in the first instance and some form of adaptor may have been produced? With the StarSafire 3, although not as easy to control in the narrower FOV without using Geopointing, upon failures, you can swap out with other SS turrets, including the SSHD which takes the same mounting/wirings. If the info helps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 51E
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20Minuter...
yes sir that information helps a lot but still my question about the zooming do you think it's improtant? and if we fitted the flir in the nose do you think the clearance will be enough to land in rough ground (desert)
yes sir that information helps a lot but still my question about the zooming do you think it's improtant? and if we fitted the flir in the nose do you think the clearance will be enough to land in rough ground (desert)
SMS - this is a link to a good article regarding FLIR technology - I thought you might be more concerned with the type of detector/sensor but from reading your posts it seems like a fitting/useability question - I don't fly the 139 so can't help on that score.
http://www.ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/NCW-101-6.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close enough to know
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a serious look at the Cineflex MS2, amazing piece of kit.. Safire 3 is old crappy tech with very inferior zoom capabilities and even worse support from manufacturer.....
You should get all three and do a fly off.. Each manufacturer will crawl all over you to sell one, so put the hard word on them..
You should get all three and do a fly off.. Each manufacturer will crawl all over you to sell one, so put the hard word on them..
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sir, we supply some components to agusta on 139 camera install. all the aforementioned cameras are excellent choices (comes down to personal preference and particular requirements), that said, the V14 will not fit, or any camera with a long lens due to ground clearance. a long lens camera would have to be placed on the side of the airframe.
cal
cal
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 51E
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They all do the same thing...when they are working.
crab thanks for the link..
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: oceanside
Age: 58
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sir, we also supply direct to:
- flir
- wescam
- axsys
- tamam
- polytech
- denel/zeiss
- swesystems
- gyrocam
- thales
- etc
therefore, we do not promote one over the other, nor should anyone else unless you are specific:
- budget
- number of sensors
- itar controlled
- long-long, long or short nose 139
- marinized
- weight
- HD, spotter, range finder, geo positioning, low light
being one of the very few that has either operated or been around the majority of cameras, i know only one thing for sure, there all pretty good when they work : )
- flir
- wescam
- axsys
- tamam
- polytech
- denel/zeiss
- swesystems
- gyrocam
- thales
- etc
therefore, we do not promote one over the other, nor should anyone else unless you are specific:
- budget
- number of sensors
- itar controlled
- long-long, long or short nose 139
- marinized
- weight
- HD, spotter, range finder, geo positioning, low light
being one of the very few that has either operated or been around the majority of cameras, i know only one thing for sure, there all pretty good when they work : )
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
First let me declare an interest; I own three Cineflex and I’m the distributor for Australasia and SE Asia. Now that we’ve got that out of the way…..
1. Southerncanuk has been incredibly helpful to me and is the guru on how to mount cameras on helicopters. If he hasn’t hung it then it probably can’t be hung.
2. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout. Yes, there has been an issue with the snout drooping in the event of a total power failure, but this is now resolved and the default parking position in that event will now be “snout up”.
3. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout….because it’s got a long lens and you can’t beat the path of light (or not since Einstein so far!). It’s my understanding (but I stand to be corrected here, or at least better informed by those who have hands-on experience) that any of the gimbal systems that don’t have a snout use a system of prime lenses that revolve into position in front of the CMOS. Thus they don’t actually zoom but instead go to pre-set steps of focal length. Apart from being rather an agricultural optical effect, this apparently results in the central focus of attention jumping to another point on the monitor during the switch over. I understand from those who’ve done it that this can make it very difficult to visually re-acquire the target you were looking at when you flicked the switch?
4. It’s my belief that the IR sensors on all three cameras are pretty much identical in capability these days. I believe all three systems mentioned have a 640 x 512 IR sensor.
5. In making an overall judgement on a surveillance package it’s worth bearing in mind that all HD cameras deal with low light conditions much more effectively than SD. So, for example, it would be normal to use the HD EO camera to read a car number plate from 2,000’ over a dimly lit urban area. IR cameras are good for searching for warm bodies in cold woods or water but they form part of a package and shouldn’t usually be assessed in isolation, other than in very specific circumstances.
6. To date I’m not aware of anybody having carried out a genuine side by side comparison of the three products. If anybody is game, and prepared to openly share the results on this forum, I will fly a Cineflex to anywhere in the world to achieve a certified head to head fly-off that we can all rely on.
I hope I haven’t broken any forum rules here. I genuinely want to know the answer to these questions from an operator’s perspective and not have to rely on the manufacturers’ blurb.
Cheers to all
JerryG
First let me declare an interest; I own three Cineflex and I’m the distributor for Australasia and SE Asia. Now that we’ve got that out of the way…..
1. Southerncanuk has been incredibly helpful to me and is the guru on how to mount cameras on helicopters. If he hasn’t hung it then it probably can’t be hung.
2. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout. Yes, there has been an issue with the snout drooping in the event of a total power failure, but this is now resolved and the default parking position in that event will now be “snout up”.
3. Yes, a Cineflex has a snout….because it’s got a long lens and you can’t beat the path of light (or not since Einstein so far!). It’s my understanding (but I stand to be corrected here, or at least better informed by those who have hands-on experience) that any of the gimbal systems that don’t have a snout use a system of prime lenses that revolve into position in front of the CMOS. Thus they don’t actually zoom but instead go to pre-set steps of focal length. Apart from being rather an agricultural optical effect, this apparently results in the central focus of attention jumping to another point on the monitor during the switch over. I understand from those who’ve done it that this can make it very difficult to visually re-acquire the target you were looking at when you flicked the switch?
4. It’s my belief that the IR sensors on all three cameras are pretty much identical in capability these days. I believe all three systems mentioned have a 640 x 512 IR sensor.
5. In making an overall judgement on a surveillance package it’s worth bearing in mind that all HD cameras deal with low light conditions much more effectively than SD. So, for example, it would be normal to use the HD EO camera to read a car number plate from 2,000’ over a dimly lit urban area. IR cameras are good for searching for warm bodies in cold woods or water but they form part of a package and shouldn’t usually be assessed in isolation, other than in very specific circumstances.
6. To date I’m not aware of anybody having carried out a genuine side by side comparison of the three products. If anybody is game, and prepared to openly share the results on this forum, I will fly a Cineflex to anywhere in the world to achieve a certified head to head fly-off that we can all rely on.
I hope I haven’t broken any forum rules here. I genuinely want to know the answer to these questions from an operator’s perspective and not have to rely on the manufacturers’ blurb.
Cheers to all
JerryG