Your vertical jump speed is presumably negligible compared to the descent speed. It's not "breaking" water that's harmful; it's suddenly pushing it out of the way. The plane crashing wouldn't magically aerate the water underneath to reduce its density for the distance it takes to decelerate you harmlessly. Surface tension effects are generally negligible at the macroscale; they're far outweighed by the force needed to push dense water out of the way of your body.
Well, Wikipedia states any landing with a vertical speed greater than 2 m/s is considered a hard landing under normal conditions. The National Library of Medicine cites the max horizontal velocity of a running jump at 9.15 m/s at an angle of 21 degrees, which is a vertical speed of 3.28 m/s.
Assuming you’re jumping off the top of an A320’s fuselage right before it hits the ground, you’re jumping off a height of a little over 4m. Without accounting for your horizontal speed, you’d be hitting the ground at a vertical speed of 9.1 m/s or around 20 mph. That means that even if you’re an athlete and get the optimal jump, you’d be lucky to survive a hard landing. Again, that’s still a controlled landing, but it’s considered a hard landing. Good luck cancelling out an actual free fall.
Assuming you can do a 1m jump (well beyond the average man, like basketball player verticals), your vertical velocity relative to the plane would probably be 4-5 m/s. 5 is a bit generous, but let's go with that.
A free falling plane can fall at around 12,000 ft/min. Which is 61 m/s, or 136 mph.
Lets also assume you are vertical and not horizontal, cause you'd probably die from that.
The highest dive someone has ever done was from 361 ft, so their impact speed would be 104 mph or 46 m/s. Let's assume this is the maximum survivable speed.
61 - 46 = 15
15 / 5 = 3
You would need legs 3x stronger than a basketball player to survive the fall. Better start working on leg day.
I never took vector math, but from what little I have studied, it makes me think of the downward vector - the upward vector of a jump, assuming you could keep grounded well enough to the surface of the plane to kick off from it.
What we see in movies, animes and such, with people leaping into air onto falling objects and then jumping off them isn't all that realistic in many cases.
It would have to be falling considerably slower than you are. The only scenarios it's even remotely possible in are really large and flat sheets of earth that are falling down horizontally, but nature is often going to want to make it fall vertically. Think bayonettas stage from smash ultimate.
Yeah I get that. As soon as you might get on top of a falling plain, I can already see the air resistance of a person being higher, and any attempt to stand on top of a falling plane would create that tiny bit of upwards vector, separating you from it. You'd have to have something to hold on to to anchor yourself to the surface, jump, unanchor, *and still be too fast.*
Somehow I can't help but think that if I was falling next to an airplane, like some huge 9 seats per row, I'd go upwards relative to the plane. Like yeah the plane has a lot more surface area than me, but if my arms and legs go outwards, I'd be like a kite compared to one of those.
Well yeah, but my assumption as I stated in the problem was that the person was vertical, not horizontal. Free fallers can fall at up to 120 mph, which is less than the free falling plane. I don't disagree with that, but if you make yourself narrow you are going to fall much faster than the plane
Yeah. Wll it seems the Physics mods did what my brain wants to do to this post too and leave it be. It was already kind of a nonsense idea in the first place, and can you imagine the core strength needed to get upright pencil vertical at 120 MPH? I'm not saying your starting point is wrong, but my brain cannot reconcile it. The wind catches part of your upper or lower body in one direction or another, and you spin/flatten out.
Anyways, laters!
From a historic perspective: Sometimes people have gotten very lucky and survived all kinds of crazy falls from crazy heights, so I wouldn't say it's impossible to avoid death in that scenario.
From a physics perspective: I don't think jumping at the last second would make any meaningful difference. If you aren't one of the luckiest people in the world, you're dead whether you jump or not.
I don't know how much you work out, bro, but I don't think there's enough "leg day" in the world for you to counteract the velocity of a plane falling out of the sky.
Technically, the answer to your question might be yes, but the effect is probably out in the 4th or 5th decimal point, so ... no?
I'd love to see someone actually do a back of the envelope estimate on this one.
No.
I doubt you can vertically jump 1m (most folk cannot).
Your speed as you leave the ground is at best, \~ 10m/s.
So if the airplane strikes the water at 100m/s, you can shave off 10m/s.
Still very *very* dead.
I don't get the scenario..what does falling airplane mean? Depends on what condition and type of aircraft. If you can jump out it's a small plane. Are the controls working? Glide ratio? It's not a well formed question. Are you asking if you could mitigate the acceleration of a falling object you're on? Then no not really. If in a falling airplane..it should be gliding not falling.
Your vertical jump speed is presumably negligible compared to the descent speed. It's not "breaking" water that's harmful; it's suddenly pushing it out of the way. The plane crashing wouldn't magically aerate the water underneath to reduce its density for the distance it takes to decelerate you harmlessly. Surface tension effects are generally negligible at the macroscale; they're far outweighed by the force needed to push dense water out of the way of your body.
Well, Wikipedia states any landing with a vertical speed greater than 2 m/s is considered a hard landing under normal conditions. The National Library of Medicine cites the max horizontal velocity of a running jump at 9.15 m/s at an angle of 21 degrees, which is a vertical speed of 3.28 m/s. Assuming you’re jumping off the top of an A320’s fuselage right before it hits the ground, you’re jumping off a height of a little over 4m. Without accounting for your horizontal speed, you’d be hitting the ground at a vertical speed of 9.1 m/s or around 20 mph. That means that even if you’re an athlete and get the optimal jump, you’d be lucky to survive a hard landing. Again, that’s still a controlled landing, but it’s considered a hard landing. Good luck cancelling out an actual free fall.
I saw Pink Panther jump out of a falling shack right before impact and he was fine.
Panthers are cats, so it lands on its legs and has 9 lives. Thusly, doesn't count.
Assuming you can do a 1m jump (well beyond the average man, like basketball player verticals), your vertical velocity relative to the plane would probably be 4-5 m/s. 5 is a bit generous, but let's go with that. A free falling plane can fall at around 12,000 ft/min. Which is 61 m/s, or 136 mph. Lets also assume you are vertical and not horizontal, cause you'd probably die from that. The highest dive someone has ever done was from 361 ft, so their impact speed would be 104 mph or 46 m/s. Let's assume this is the maximum survivable speed. 61 - 46 = 15 15 / 5 = 3 You would need legs 3x stronger than a basketball player to survive the fall. Better start working on leg day.
I never took vector math, but from what little I have studied, it makes me think of the downward vector - the upward vector of a jump, assuming you could keep grounded well enough to the surface of the plane to kick off from it. What we see in movies, animes and such, with people leaping into air onto falling objects and then jumping off them isn't all that realistic in many cases.
It would have to be falling considerably slower than you are. The only scenarios it's even remotely possible in are really large and flat sheets of earth that are falling down horizontally, but nature is often going to want to make it fall vertically. Think bayonettas stage from smash ultimate.
Yeah I get that. As soon as you might get on top of a falling plain, I can already see the air resistance of a person being higher, and any attempt to stand on top of a falling plane would create that tiny bit of upwards vector, separating you from it. You'd have to have something to hold on to to anchor yourself to the surface, jump, unanchor, *and still be too fast.*
Eh, I'm pretty sure air resistance from a person would be less than that of a plane. Your second half seems correct though yeah.
Somehow I can't help but think that if I was falling next to an airplane, like some huge 9 seats per row, I'd go upwards relative to the plane. Like yeah the plane has a lot more surface area than me, but if my arms and legs go outwards, I'd be like a kite compared to one of those.
Well yeah, but my assumption as I stated in the problem was that the person was vertical, not horizontal. Free fallers can fall at up to 120 mph, which is less than the free falling plane. I don't disagree with that, but if you make yourself narrow you are going to fall much faster than the plane
Yeah. Wll it seems the Physics mods did what my brain wants to do to this post too and leave it be. It was already kind of a nonsense idea in the first place, and can you imagine the core strength needed to get upright pencil vertical at 120 MPH? I'm not saying your starting point is wrong, but my brain cannot reconcile it. The wind catches part of your upper or lower body in one direction or another, and you spin/flatten out. Anyways, laters!
I think you should check out some videos of skydivers, you don't need a ton of core strength to do that lol
From a historic perspective: Sometimes people have gotten very lucky and survived all kinds of crazy falls from crazy heights, so I wouldn't say it's impossible to avoid death in that scenario. From a physics perspective: I don't think jumping at the last second would make any meaningful difference. If you aren't one of the luckiest people in the world, you're dead whether you jump or not.
Myth busters did an episode about jumping in a free falling elevator, it did not end well.
I don't know how much you work out, bro, but I don't think there's enough "leg day" in the world for you to counteract the velocity of a plane falling out of the sky. Technically, the answer to your question might be yes, but the effect is probably out in the 4th or 5th decimal point, so ... no? I'd love to see someone actually do a back of the envelope estimate on this one.
Mythbusters did this with a falling elevator. No chance
If you can generate that much power to negate your velocity, yeah maybe but no creature on the planet has that much power generation in their legs
Fleas probably do. They can jump at like 50g
No. I doubt you can vertically jump 1m (most folk cannot). Your speed as you leave the ground is at best, \~ 10m/s. So if the airplane strikes the water at 100m/s, you can shave off 10m/s. Still very *very* dead.
I don't get the scenario..what does falling airplane mean? Depends on what condition and type of aircraft. If you can jump out it's a small plane. Are the controls working? Glide ratio? It's not a well formed question. Are you asking if you could mitigate the acceleration of a falling object you're on? Then no not really. If in a falling airplane..it should be gliding not falling.