5 Most Crashed Planes

In this video, we take a look at the 5 most accident-prone passenger jet airliners (statistically the most crashed planes).
Watch also:
The Smallest Boeing 747 Version: • The Smallest Boeing 74...
5 Longest Aircraft in the World: • 5 Longest Aircraft in ...
5 Longest Airbus Airplanes: • 5 Longest Airbus Airpl...
Thanks for watching!

[@ListopediaYT]

Part 2 of this video coming next week!

[@80sfreak14]

Listopedia. Make sure to put the IL-62, TU-154 and DC-10 on that list.

[@joeg5414]

Still waiting

[@saltyroe3179]

Using statistics doesn't tell you how bad these planes were. I have flown in all but the 990. I flew in them when they were operated by good airlines that properly maintained them. The problem with these planes is that ended up being flown by sketchy airlines, flown by less than the best pilots and not properly maintained. The last problem is the biggest. Lack of maintenance usually occurs because of airline financial difficulties. This also causes their best pilots to try to find a better airline. Another issue is that the small ones were used at very difficult airports I can remember remember landing in the Foker where the pilots left the door to the cockpit open and noticing that the airplane was was crabbed about 30 degrees until flair out. Flair out and straightening the plane was wild. The real scary flights were in piston and turboprops flying near mountains. Of course my dad got to experiance wing overs in Avianca DC3s in the 1940s, but the pilots were fantastic and that plane is built with indifinate life time, I do suspect that DC3 has the most hull losses because of WWII actions

[@andreamundsen7181]

Its also important to remember that a lot of the crashes back in the days were pilot errors and not just aircraft failures. Some of these planes could fly today but it costs way to much keeping them safe. They did not have very good simulators to train on in the 60/70ies. Some of the simulators were just the cockpit, a huge screen in front and a camera "flying" in a little model landscape/airport area in another huge room and also some segments with sky background. You could not train realisticly on a route, just segments. Today the simulators have the whole world in details and a lot more realistic experience before they enter the real thing. These planes were solid good planes, but more to take care of by the pilots and even the autopilots were more "manual". Some of these planes did not have autothrottle or automatic altitude hold. they had to lock the altitude manually and find the right speed with the throttles. Easier to end up in a stressfull situation than in an Airbus A320. You still see a handfull of cargo/military DC-8s and 707s out there and thats because they made good planes in the 60/70ies. Just harder to fly them. And yes. todays planes are more reliable too.

[@dave_riots]

Strange how a bunk of these planes get into a larger number of accidents, but fewer airframes are built. Pilot error and expensive maintenance are a deadly combination.

[@lemao_squash4486]

Ok that was a good vid

[@ameliahschneider5748]

I’ve come to the conclusion, that the owner of this channel, likes planes.

[@dave_riots]

Ameliah Schneider Who doesn't? Each of them has their own amazing feats of engineering.

[@douglux657]

The DC-10 had 24 crashes+ crashed a Concorde

[@divinest]

i was just waiting for air france

[@jup1ter_f1ve]

I was expecting the Mcdonnell Douglas DC-10 to be here.

[@karlosbricks2413]

there's no overtime about it, they ( like on the 747) had to redesign the cargo door holds and deck vents, after these were changed, they were perfectly safe.

[@strtngfrsh]

I woudln't say perfectly but definitely safer.

[@aerbus]

Well the MD11 had a horizontal stabilizer, which was too small, if not trimmed up excessively during approach, that caused a hard bounce that could an led to a fatal crash...

[@COIcultist]

KarlosBricks. They knew there was a problem from 1972 but the FAA didn't issue an airworthiness directive. Re designed locks that still didn't work and pressure relief vents that weren't big enough. Then Turkey 1974 and the above faults were fixed. Then the engines started falling off.

[@karlosbricks2413]

I'm sorry if i wasn't clear, I personally don't like the DC-10, much prefer the L10-11, however, people hype up the problems it had, the 747 had a similar problem with it's cargo door opening in flight, only they didn't suffer any fatal crashes( for example a Pan Am 747 leaving Heathrow was climbing through 11000ft when they had to turn back and land due to improper pressurisation, when they did land they found the cargo door gapping open) they did however try to cover it up. why do you think the engines on the DC-10 came off was it because of improper maintenance like El AL 1862, or was it because of a design fault? it's clearly documented that American didn't perform maintenance properly resulting in the crash. obviously the DC-10 was not perfect, as I outlined in a different comment, both the DC-10 and MD-11 were designed on very tight budgets, which resulted in the well documented design flaws.

[@sylviaelse5086]

An aircraft will remain in service until it is either grounded by regulations, crashes, or becomes uneconomical. So a good aircraft will be operated for a long time, and be at greater risk of ending its life in an accident. That doesn't mean it's more accident prone. The only meaningful measures are accidents per flight hour, or accidents per flight.

[@TijmensAviation]

1:19 I guess that’s a F100, not a F28

[@Ion_Petrov]

Aviation Spirit its a F70 or F100

[@karlosbricks2413]

CS-TBP is a Fokker 100

[@scentedcandles1236]

First! (Edit : Great video! )

[@TheOnlyTYRE]

DC-10! WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE DC-10

[@Avvfguy]

Your a AESOME at aircraft

[@baljeep_gay]

No they didnt even look at the timespan.

[@Basket_Propellors]

0:55 Garuda Indonesia F28 *Soon in 1979* *Crashes into a Volcano*

[@genasatria2541]

XD XD XD XD XP

[@azkahaitami4666]

Lol

[@semosui205]

Cebu pacific dc 9 crashed out of nowhere

[@tracyarmstrong8266]

1:49 must be so weird plane spotting and it has a parachute

[@tracyarmstrong8266]

You really don’t get it...

[@tracyarmstrong8266]

Supreme 0964 IM SAYING ITS A RARE PLANE TO SEE NOW DAYS DO YOU GET IT IT MUST BE WEIRD FINDING A PLANE DOING THAT OK???

[@EricIrl]

At the time the Caravelle was designed, thrust reversers were not yet in general use. So, Sud Aviation fitted early versions with a braking parachute - similar to what you see on some bombers like the B-52 and the Vulcan - and the Space Shuttle. Later versions of the Caravelle had normal thrust reversers. You may have noticed that the F-28 had a form of airbrake as well - this time a pair of split doors under the tail which were deployed to slow the plane down on landing. They could also be deployed in flight to slow the aircraft down in teh air and to steepen approach paths.

[@3cyx741]

these planes do not even look like they're safe

[@3cyx741]

ermm

[@earthbarnes6694]

Some of them don't

[@Capt.Rankin]

Where did you get your music from?

[@krazykidd205]

whats the name of the song playing ?

[@douglux657]

Where the 737 MAX

[@voderick]

The SAS DC9 was more a -21srs, not 10srs

[@EricIrl]

They also had a lot of Series 40s - which was a comparatively rare version of the DC-9/

[@Avvfguy]

I knew it 1:00!!!

[@lindenatdawn]

Dc9 ok.... what about the md80 and the 717

[@disorganizedorg]

It doesn't appear that anything accounting for hours or miles in the air was accounted for. Fly anything long enough (like, maybe because it's safe?) and you'll eventually lose many of them to crashes. That doesn't make the aircraft unsafe.

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Rich Marceau IKR, whoever produced this click bait didn't take into account that these aircraft were early designs and air and ground crews were having issues adjusting to the new technology.

[@ahuehuete4703]

It would also be interesting to know how old they were on average when they crashed, and who was flying them. I strongly suspect that the bulk of the crashes were with 3rd world airlines flying 30+ year old jets. That said, newer designs are safer, mostly because the engines are more reliable and the glass cockpits help reduce pilot errors.

[@disorganizedorg]

That makes a great deal of sense. Not only less experienced/competent pilots in such countries, but also lack of aviation infrastructure (navigation aids, ATC, possibly lower maintenance standards, etc).

[@mirandali1999]

I don’t really care because all the planes are very old.

[@nongtee4441]

What About The DC-10 And The DC-11?

[@planeflight1202]

dc 11

[@karlosbricks2413]

you mean MD-11? Both were designed on a tight budget and both have their (sometimes fatal) issues, but they are not as high in terms of crash/flight as some other aircraft

[@meqolo1714]

The DC-10 only killed so many because of the airlines trying to cut maintenance costs. There were design flaws, however they got fixed somewhat quickly.

[@AdamRazaAvia]

MD-11 is not unsafe. They only have 4 fatal crashes

[@floxy20]

I would like to know the definition of "crash." I suspect it's pretty loose.

[@meqolo1714]

Hull losses probably

[@instructionismexe1783]

Hmm i dont seem to see Lion Air that mf crash 6 times in 5 years... God they dont even have good pilots and excrutiatingly expensive...

[@douglux657]

D C - 1 0

[@Astra-bg9sf]

Second.

[@ListopediaYT]

Almost haha :)

[@Avvfguy]

First