Sorry, this is one of the dumbest lists I have ever seen. This is a joke calling the 757 one of the 10 most unsuccessful planes with 1,050 sold. The MD-80's , as you said, is one of the longest serving planes in the world with 1,191 sales. Then, just to make the list even dumber is adding the 737-200 to the list. When you look at the miles flown, the 737-200 is one of the safest planes that has ever taken to the air.
Ok , so what qualifies an aircraft to be successful?? The B757 and MD-80s sold over 1000 units and were in production for over 20 years. And both are still in service. They are both also on the same list as ILs and Tupolevs? Lol lol
It's a crap list that misses the most famous unsuccessful commercial airliners and includes some of the most successful. It also has technical issues that indicate the narrator has no clue how airplanes work. (Thrust reversers cannot "detonate.")
I'm glad that my favorite airplane, the L 1011 Tristar, is not in the list. Only lucky people like me will understand the glories of the Tristars. ❤️❤️✈️🛫
This list mostly included aircraft which still were fairly popular, the A340, 757 or ATR-72, 737-200 and MD-80 for example. I don’t really agree with having those on the list. When I clicked on the video I expected the list to include aircraft like the Dassault Mercure 100, VFW-614, Do-728 and other aircraft which could really be called unpopular and mostly already a thing of the past. Also, while the MAX unfortunately had a rough start, solely by looking at the amount of orders it gained I still wouldn’t call it an unsuccessful aircraft in that sense!
The max is cheap, Boeing needed to sell it somehow and reduce the gap between the Max and the NEOs But you're totally right about the mentioned aircraft, thank you for your feedback 👍🏼
What exactly is meant by unsuccessful? I mean the max has over 4,000 orders …..that’s already a record…….safety,efficiency and comfort are much different issues
@@lingamsainath8654 Orders mean a lot, the MAX has around 4,800 orders which is a lot. Like I already said in my comment it’s sad to see the way Boeing has planned and didn’t test the aircraft properly, still the amount of orders make the aircraft anything but unsuccessful. How would you measure popularity?
737 Max is hardly a failure. This logic would dictate that 787 was a failure when first introduced. I think A380 should be on top of the list, as this was an aircraft that was completely wrong for the time it was introduced. MD-11 and DC-10 are other problematic airplanes. Concorde and TU-144 are other planes that were not commercially successful. How about the Comet?
if the topic is commercial success/failure (as the title of this video implies), I would also list the A380 family as the #1 most unsuccessful commercial aircraft given the cost of development and production to its low # of sales, its short life span and the lack of a secondary/second-hand market for retired A380s. Most other Boeing/Airbus aircraft (etc.) find a second and third life with other airlines (see Avelo in the USA buying used 737-700, and 800's from Southwest). Kudos for making entertaining videos, but shame he/she didn't vet or explain his/her ranking criteria.
You forget the Concorde. Initially the aircraft was planned to be produced in large quantities and already several airlines have ordered it. But in the reality is that only a few units were produced and only 2 airlines use them. Likewise with its rival from the Soviet Union, the Tupolev TU-144.
I was expecting the Concorde to be on the list, I mean, from a commercial point of view it was a disasters! Billions of dollars invested only to make 14 airplanes?
@@Top10Aviation This list is complete crap and makes you look like you don't know anything at all about either airplanes or the commercial aircraft industry. You missed the one that caused the biggest corporate loss in U.S. history. And you claim that thrust reversers can "detonate." If you want to be credible -- at all -- do better.
I have over 16,000 hours in 737s from the 200, (8,500 hours) through the New Generation. I never had ANY problems in any model 737. I strongly disagree with your condemnation of the 737-200.
Say A340 being unsuccessful was borderline true, but saying the B757 being not successful... Now that is bs Edit: 737 Max wasn't completely unsuccessful... False information
@@Top10Aviation simply because it's one of the best selling commercial aircraft in history. I mean its on a list with the Il-62 & TU-204, & every pilot I've ever spoken with whose piloted the 'Mad Dog' absolutely loved it.
I think you missed failure Aircrafts: L-1101 Tri-star DC10 Tupolev TU-404 Sukhoi KR-860 Airbus A380-900 Lockheed Martin VLST Boeing 747-700X McDonnell Douglas MD-XX McDonnell Douglas MD-12 Tupolev Tu-304
Given the sales figures of most of these aircraft, esp. the 757, the MD-80 and the 737-200, this vid should be re-titled "I Don't Like These Aircraft and Didn't Do My Homework So I Made A Top 10 List", or maybe "I Don't Know How To Pronounce SAAB".
Two crashes not incidents my learned friend. Boeing are still fighting to keep this out of the US courts. A scamdalous company profit before safety. Blamed the pilots too. ffs
Concorde was a spectacularly unsuccessful commercial aircraft. It did not sell and was forced onto BA and Air France. If it is not in the top 10, it deserves at least an honourable mention.
They weren't necessarily forced onto AF and BA, they were actually sold at a massive discount especially since they were their respective nations' flag carriers. But I definitely agree that Concorde should be 1. on the list (even though I absolutely love it despite it being before my time)
From a manufacturing perspective, it was most definitely a failure. However, certainly not in the case of BA, where it was one of their most profitable aircraft.
I've read that the A380 had nagging reliability issues, but never heard that about the 747. Where did you get the information to make the claim that the 380 was more reliable?
Actually, the IL-62 is similar with a VC-10 design, because both plane manufactioners had almost the same technical task, to make an airliner, with 4 engines in the back. The IL-62 was supposed to be a good replacement for TU-114 (largest turboprop ever), and a new flagman for Aeroflot. Engineers tried to make it as easy to produce as possible, and, even though there were many crashes, which lead to death of 1086 people in total, they were not as often as something like TU-104 (1 out of 5 planes was destroyed in an accident), it killed 1137 people, but it was produced in lesser amounts. The IL-62 also was easier to produce and maintain. VC-10 had a problem of falling back, and the engineers solved it by moving the wings a bit forward, but it made the control surfaces less efficent, so they installed a massive tail. IL-62 on the other hand, had an easier solution, a rear wheel stand prevented it from falling back, and when folded - didn't let the plane to touch the runway during takeoff. Plane wasn't bad at all, compared to other soviet planes at the time, it's just people comparing the soviet airliner, with less budget and poor technology to advanced western aircraft.
1. Should be Concorde. Literally the most unsellable (but the greatest ever built in my opinion) aircraft in aviation history having had major order cancellations and only a handful built overall. The 737 MAX is nowhere near an unsuccessful aircraft series given how many orders are still coming in for the type and how many currently operate it.
My best flight ever was on a 757! It was a long flight with few people aboard. I slept almost 5 hours! The flight attendant sat with me as we got closer to our destination!
Wtf MD80 is not that of a failure and might be loud but that's were it gets it's name Mad Dog. And 737-200 can't be compared to Il-62. And 737-7/8/9/10 MAXes had a rough start with couple crashes but now they are semi successful. And 737 family is the most successful aircraft family in the history of aviation. And also knowing the fact that FAA didn't let Tu-204 fly in USA means that MD80, 737-200 or 737-7/8/9/10 MAX are nothing compared to Il-62 or Tu-204. And ATR 72-600 is nothing compared to those Russian planes.
Just a bit of critique. The 757 and MD 80 are very successful planes and don't belong on this list. The 757 sold 1050 aircraft of which 625 are still flying. The MD 80, and its variants, sold almost 1200 aircraft, and after Boeing bought McDonald/Douglas they rebranded and kept making it, as the 717. In the cabin, due to the position of the engines, if you're in the front part of the cabin its very quiet. In the video you're showing a 737 while talking about the 757. Your pronunciation of SAAB (sob) was way off base. When producing video's like this, its important to get these right.
The De Havilland Comet probably should be on this list. Putting the 737 Max on this list at all would be incorrect, but putting it first is really a stretch.
The worst one in my opinion is the Airbus A380 mentioned here. Why? It was Airbus’s answer to a problem that didn’t exist… replacing the 747 and overtaking Boeing as the king of commercial aircraft manufacturing. They took a reliable aircraft, gave it it’s own twist, blew it up on steroids and hoped airlines would buy it. Meanwhile the airlines looked at them and said, “Why would we buy such a huge, new and largely unknown monstrosity that needs absurdly large and new ground facilities to maintain when we can buy 747s that have had proven reliability for the past 50 years and we can use our already existing ground facilities?”
@@Top10Aviation 757 has better performance and higher capacity Only thing the A321 competes in is range and airbus had to upgrade it twice to meet the range of the 757
As per my opinion ATR72-600....B757....MD80....this Aircrafts are the successor for the many airlines....they are still into service with good reputation ☺️
Great video but I don't think adding the 757 was good ,sold about 1,050. I don't think that was a failure it just became outdated. To me any airplane sold more than 1,000 models is a success
I flew the 757 for four years, and it is a workhorse. Boeing screwed up not continuing to produce it, and this was because it had powerful engines which used slightly more fuel than the pile of shit band-aid on band-aid 737.
For me the biggest disappointment was the A380, considering the fact the airplane it was supposed to replace the 1960s desighned 747 outlived it. I remember the head of Airbus at San Francisco airport saying "welcome to the future of aviation" well that didn't last long.
I agree: the Airbus A380 won't be doing 30 years as a jetliner. But that partly is due to the changing of mind of airlines when some Bo..ng guys told them "Look at my 777, it's the best way to fly". Btw, the first aircraft made by Airbus was ... a twin aisle twin jet A300, 45 years ago, before the 767 and 757 were even thought at
@@loiclaronche5675 I agree the A300 was a game changer. Shame Airbus did not stick to twin jets as every quad jet they have made has not been as successful. Thier a330 and a350 have done well.
Yes, the A380 was purely an vanity project largely at the expense of the European tax payers. Airlines were retiring their jumbos because the age of point to point travel in twin engine jets had come. Probably the most expensive airline flop in history, and one by one, they are all being sent to scrap.
An other point about the A380 is her size. Smaller airports can hold her because of large wingspan (taxiing problems) and the need of double decks terminals. For example in Geneva (GVA /LSGG) that's why Emirates come daily with 2 B777 instead of 1 A380
I would argue that A340-300 was successful, while other variants (-200, -500 and -600) where not. A340-300 was a succes given the size of Airbus at that time, and the A340 made Airbus climb into the long haul market. Mentioning turboprops in the same sentence as 757... totally different ends of the market. This is nonsense. A380 was no success. Agreed. Saab 340 was a sucessful design. The plane is still sought after. Maybe you mixed it up with the Saab 2000? MD-80 uncomfy? Come an! Have you ever flown in one in the front part of the cabin? I would have a completely different list. A380, A318, 767-400, 737Max, 757-300, A340-600
My list 1) Tupolev Tu-144 2) Airbus A380 3) Ilyusion il 86 and 96 4) Boeing 737-600 5) Airbus A318 6) Mcdonnel Douglas MD-11 7) Lockheed L-1011 8) Boeing 747-300 9) Concorde 10) Airbus A340 Your list is bad lol
I think it's a bit unfair to say the 737 Max is unsuccessful. Yes, the plane crashed but all its problems have now been sorted and the plane has actually picked up many orders since its re-introduction . You could also have mentioned the MD11
Agree. The worst of the list is the 738 max. 2 weeks after that accident, I flew with 738 max. The longest 2 hours ever in my life worrying the flight. 😵
A very poorly made list. Seriously 737-200?! It is still operated by some carrier in Canada and was the most sold original 737. Also no Dassault Mercure or il 96
I don’t know we’re you got your information, but the Boeing 757 sold 1050 aircraft before it was retired in 2005. The MD-80 started out in the 1960s as the DC-9 and finish as the Boeing 717 in 2005 and selling thousands in the different variants. What about the failed Concord or the BAC146 or Comet just to mention a few. Next time you do a video like this get the fact correct.
AIRBUS 380 FOR the INVESTMENT/NEW TECHNOLOGY PUT IN TO THE Airplane with number of units build and used it commercially that made money its a TOTAL FAiLure
U can’t put the MAX as number one on the list. It’s life is just beginning and because of those crashes, the aircraft is potentially one of the safest on the planet due to the amount of checks boeing did.
I don’t think it is actually wise to call the A380 “inefficient”.While twin jets may burn less fuel,they may not be able to carry as much passengers as the A380.Yes,it needs bigger airports or runways.But if you look at emirates,they profit form this aircraft because of its capacity and range.If you have any other suggestions please add.
Yes according to me the A380 is successfully operated by Emirates and many airlines are bringing back the giant to service. It's the most technically advanced aircraft. The thing it failed only because of the infrastructure facilities at airport.
Comparing the A380 reliability to the 747 family is not fair since the 747-100 through 400 never directly competed with A380. Only 747-8 directly competed with A380 and since I haven't heard about the 747-8 maintainence costs exceeding A380, I don't think the A380 is more reliable than 747-8.
A number of people have commented on what names shouldn't be on this list. I have one that SHOULD be on it an isn't. It is the DC-10, also known by some as the flying coffin.
What’s your definition of unsuccessful? Seemed to change about 2/3 of the way into the video, when “unsuccessful” definition changed from poor sales to poor safety.
The a380 Flying Cattle car & the 787 NightmareLiner are failures. The a340, 737 & 757 are not... The 737, for example, is the most popular aircraft of all time, and is flown by airlines all around the world
There are just so many things wrong with this video. Why not include planes like the Lockheed L-1011, BOAC Comet, or Convair 880/990? Hell the video even mentioned the Vickers VC-10, why not include that? Hell even the Concorde would’ve been a better choice than half of the choices made here. The 757 was a success. The 737 Max series was a success. The 737-200 was a great success, especially in harsh environments with high chance of debris (hence why airlines still operate these). Arguably, the A 380 was a success as clearly airlines like emirates make them work. The MD-80 series was a great success and was an integral part in opening air travel to the masses from many parts of the world.
You have got to be kidding. The B757 ? The ATR72? The Mad Dog? The 737-200? The Max? This is either a complete lack of knowledge on aviation history or are just trolling.
7:12 Thrust Reversers *CANNOT "detonate."* They are hinged panels that redirect airflow. What the hell are you talking about? Learn something about aircraft and get your story straight before you get known for publishing crap.
