Canon Rebel XT Survives Fall

Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602

"RichA" wrote in message
...

Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602


"It has a crack in the plastic body-"

The camera obviously fell into a relatively soft area (note the grass
and dirt) and it didn't have much energy when it hit. Terminal
velocity being about 250mph, I guess we know what would have happened
hat it hit stone or concrete. Plastic bodies have been know to crack
falling from a height of 6ft onto those surfaces. However, in this
case, the low mass of the camera probably helped keep it from getting
smashed.


Maybe, but how would you cope with landing in a relatively soft area, at
half that terminal velocity, say maybe 120MPH?

Ah nuts, already been done: ;-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-survived.html

"Jim Bob" wrote in
:

"RichA" wrote in message
.
..

Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602


"It has a crack in the plastic body-"

The camera obviously fell into a relatively soft area (note the grass
and dirt) and it didn't have much energy when it hit. Terminal
velocity being about 250mph, I guess we know what would have happened
hat it hit stone or concrete. Plastic bodies have been know to crack
falling from a height of 6ft onto those surfaces. However, in this
case, the low mass of the camera probably helped keep it from getting
smashed.


Maybe, but how would you cope with landing in a relatively soft area,
at half that terminal velocity, say maybe 120MPH?

Ah nuts, already been done: ;-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ll-12-000-ft--
-survived.html

I don't even know if that is a record. Theoretically, someone travelling
at 250mph could survive a fall by hitting a very large tree, with
branches reducing the rate of fall by "X"amount every time one was hit.
The impact has to be cushioned by the flex of the branch, and the speed
has to be reduced at a rate that won't "g-force" internal organs to pulp.

RichA wrote:
Jim Bob wrote:
Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602

"It has a crack in the plastic body-"

Looks like the memory card door which is plastic on most cameras.

The camera obviously fell into a relatively soft area (note the grass
and dirt) and it didn't have much energy when it hit. Terminal
velocity being about 250mph,

Explain to us how you happen to know the terminal velocity of a
falling camera.

I guess

Don't. It just makes you look foolish.

--
Ray Fischer

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:47:39 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
:
: Jim Bob wrote:
: Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602
:
: "It has a crack in the plastic body-"
:
: The camera obviously fell into a relatively soft area (note the grass
: and dirt) and it didn't have much energy when it hit.

With the extensive knowledge of physics implied by your habitual claims about
the merits of metal vs plastic, you surely must know that the energy possessed
by a falling object has nothing whatever to do with the softness of the ground
that it hits.

Bob

"Rich" wrote in message
...

Out of a plane without a chute, and still survived.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602


"It has a crack in the plastic body-"

The camera obviously fell into a relatively soft area (note the grass
and dirt) and it didn't have much energy when it hit. Terminal
velocity being about 250mph, I guess we know what would have happened
hat it hit stone or concrete. Plastic bodies have been know to crack
falling from a height of 6ft onto those surfaces. However, in this
case, the low mass of the camera probably helped keep it from getting
smashed.


Maybe, but how would you cope with landing in a relatively soft area,
at half that terminal velocity, say maybe 120MPH?

Ah nuts, already been done: ;-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ll-12-000-ft--
-survived.html

I don't even know if that is a record. Theoretically, someone travelling
at 250mph could survive a fall by hitting a very large tree, with
branches reducing the rate of fall by "X"amount every time one was hit.
The impact has to be cushioned by the flex of the branch, and the speed
has to be reduced at a rate that won't "g-force" internal organs to pulp.


I'm not sure whether a human could reach 250MPH at that
altitude. When I done a tandem, it was around 120MPH from 12,000ft, with a
thing trailing behind us. To reach 250MPH from that height, I guess you
would need to be solo, lycra'd up and basically dive, even then, I'm not
sure you would achieve it.

Strangely enough, my uncle died falling from a hang-glider and landed in
trees. I didn't know him very well as he moved to Australia when he was
young, so only met him once when he came back to visit. He was both an
experienced hang-glider pilot and also a qualified commercial fixed wing
pilot. I'm not sure exactly what happened, I can only imagine he got too
complacent and didn't strap himself in properly.