3689388258?profile=originalI was reading this mornings news and came across this interesting item.

It started out playing with model helicopters over a few Friday night beers.

Now, it's becoming big business, using the ultimate in boys' toys.

News item link

Mr Wilmot, Media Mechanics' director, said he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter when he was flying model helicopters at after-work drinks sessions.

The helicopter, which weighs 12kg and costs $38,000, is handy for filming where static photography or photography using full-sized helicopters doesn't work.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • You know Flying-Cam in Belgium they do it since 20 years






  • We use a small 4 motor unit with a mini IR camera and a small UV camera for inspecting power line insulators and substation equipment plus some mechanical facilities now ... batteries run about 20 min so is sufficient to go up a tower and record corona or heat on electrical equipment.   We have to file a flight note here in Canada with the Ministry of Transport and abide by rules set for each flight.    We have also used in the United States with a similar notification to the FAA .. What we need is more payload and flight time and we are working on that challenges




  • John, I think you completely misread the statement. Yes, the sentence was poorly worded. I do noy believe the claim was they were the first to come up with this idea.


    The statement "he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter" could have easily been written "the first time he thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter" and made you happy. You're making assumptions that they are claiming to be the first. The article did not say that.


    I suspect the interview went something like this:


    Interviewer: What made you think to put a camera on a helicopter? (as if anyone actually cared about this question - but the interviewer knows nothing about the subject and needs to come up with a list of questions no matter how idiotic)


    Guys from NZ: Well it's funny you ask. You see, every friday we go to the local pub and get totally sh*t faced. I had just lost my job and was trying to come up with a new idea to earn a living....and my buddy had this crazy idea... etc, etc....


    So when the article gets written the idiot reporter writes "he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter when he was flying model helicopters at after-work drinks sessions." Clearly this is a "filler" sentence to make his/her required 800 characters...


  • @ramboky

    Also not the place to discuss "basic journalism", but I'd suggest you look up the terms "Reported Speech", "Indirect speech", and "Past simple".

    Quotation marks aren't used when quoting in the past tense, and when you report something someone has said, you go back a tense.

    It's pretty clear to me you've taken exception to "another" New Zealand company being shown up for taking credit where it isn't due, and you're clutching at straws in order to level personal insults.


    If we were anywhere else I'd enjoy reciprocating but I doubt our hosts would tolerate it so you'll need to take your venom elsewhere.

  • @ramboky


    "Mr Wilmot, Media Mechanics' director, "said" he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter when he was flying model helicopters at after-work drinks sessions."

    When you remove his occupation (Media Mechanics' director), it reads as follows:-

    "Mr Wilmot said he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter when he was flying model helicopters at after-work drinks sessions.".

    The reporter was quoting Matt Wilmot, and there's no way to confuse that unless you "needed" to.

    "There is no mention of a public offering or investors so I don't know where you're going with the IP/Investors rant."

    There's no mention of a public offering, and there may never be. But if there is, and that article is referred to in investment paraphernalia (like others have done in the past - remember the 'never go flat battery'?), then it does nothing to inform potential investors that others had pioneered that technology a long time before Mr Wilmot "thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter after a few drinks".

    The 30,000 Kiwis leaving each year is a long standing issue referred to as the great "Brain Drain". This isn't the place to discuss that one, but its a hot topic at most news sites and political forums in New Zealand so knock yourself out.

    I can't help but think that from the title of this post on your comments since that you either suffer from some serious comprehension issues or you're just a bit of a troll.

    Nice. But you've gone out of your way to paint that picture because you didn't read the article properly, and I suspect you read it the way y
  • Bottom line - he sells the helicopters - use at your own (regulatory) risk.
  • @Gregg Fletcher: if you think this  sort of activity is not regulated in Australia you're dreaming. It is nigh impossible to do commercial aerial photography with RC helis in Australia - you'd need a UAV operators license to do it legally and get insurance and the number of licensed operators can be counted on one (maybe two) hands.

    It is slightly different if you're doing it as a hobby as that's regulated differently. But as soon as you take a dollar for your aerial photography you're illegal. 

  • @Daniel G

    "he first thought about attaching a camera to a helicopter"


    Perhaps he was misquoted, but the statement from the article "he first thought of attaching A camera to A helicopter" sounds the same as "he first thought of putting A handlebar on A motorcycle", or "he first thought of attaching A mouse to A desktop computer".


    There's also the context of the article, "Now it's becoming big business" and "Extensive research on the internet led him to Wellington engineer Kimberley Attwell who designed the helicopter".


    Perhaps its sufficiently ambiguous to be read one way or the other, but personally I would have paid tribute to those who pioneered the technology rather than allow wording in an article that could be misconstrued.


    There's also the commercial aspects too. Many businesses in New Zealand won't be aware there's a universe of options in that field - and the same goes for many "not so smart" investors.


    There's a company in New Zealand that obtained a who truckload of start-up capital a few years ago for a "new technology" venture from several high profile business figures, and the technology it was based on was pulled right off of the pages of Instructables. It was given a boost by a news item stating that the invention was new and for many people, unless its right in their faces, they have no idea whats out there (in the public domain) and what or when certain products (or systems) were invented.


    Its startup's like that which eventually investors get stung by due to lack of IP protection, and that affects the opportunity for inventors who really do come up with original ideas and products.


    So I th

  • @ramboky

    30-40,000 New Zealanders move to Australia each year so its a common and prevalent theme.

    As for myself. We have family on both sides of the ditch as my wife originates from QLD. We've spent enough time at both countries to know which we prefer, and for what reasons - but where we reside right now is influenced by family commitments so moving or staying is a decision we've reluctantly put on hold until those commitments change.






  • "12kg and costs $38,000" or 1,3kg and $200 for a tricopter:




    Some people just want to have heavy and expensive stuff ...hehehe


    [moderator comment: this is a bit of a hijack of this blog, next time post your own, please. Only comment relative to the blog topic. Thanks]

This reply was deleted.