To be honest, a car seems safer to me than an airplane. Even though it's very rare that an airplane crashes, in the rare case that it DOES, you're a lot less likely to survive than if you're in a car.
@SplatterMW2 Sorry pal, that was a pubic airport with numerous aircraft sitting on the ground. That is not where crash tests are conducted, and they don't run them into forests. Not to mention that the aircraft had a commercial carrier name and logo panted in it. No Carrier service in the world would allow there logo to be displayed on the side of an aircraft about to be deliberately crashed. Use your head. Think! Sadly that was a real crash and the numb nut that posted it didn't know either.
@SplatterMW2 Nope. Everything I stated still applies. That type of testing would only be done in a controlled environment far from any public area. 30 years at McDonnell Douglas & Boeing gives me a bit of insite. I beleive you were mislead with this doucumenory you watched. If you know what it was,.. post it. I'm curious.
FYI the first is not a test, it was at an airshow when the pilot did I flyby. Unfortunately, when he applied full power, the aircraft didn't climb, and so It hit the trees. It's on wiki
Yeh the first one was an A320 on a test flight. The FMC was in control when it went into trees, 3 people died as mentioned. The 707 was the one which was radio controlled.
Although the intention of the crash was to fly straight and level through a series of metallic hooks designed to rip the fuel tanks - as a test for the new fuel type. The controller made an error and slammed it into the concrete. Whilst it looks bad, the crash got passed due to little fire inside the cabin.
Because I saw an airplane accident on TV 20 yrs ago with the exact same footage I'm an idiot?
Oh this was you trying to land a plane on a simulator , I get it , just some computer generated likeness o a plane crash 20yrs ago. Pretty good visual effects my son.
Check in the background you will see all the features of an airfeild, allbeit a small one. Nobody would crash a plane on purpose in the vicinity of other aicraft... especialy a radio controlled one.
THE 1ST IS DEFO NOT A TEST! it was an recently new airbus purchased by air france.. Had passengers and crew on it and it was supposed to fly, low, alongside spectators and crashed, some survived and others didnt!!!
Alib4, that first crash was not an unmanned plane. That's Air France 296, the Mulhouse-Habsheim airshow crash from June 26 1988. Three passengers died.
the first one was not a test crash it was a test drive but the plane was remote control but the remote failed so they dont test plane like that anymore.
The second one was, yes, but i can't recall anyone ever doing an automated plane crash into a forest before. I'm sorry to say it, but that's a real accident.
im telling you, i saw a documentary and this video was in it, they were talking about taking the pilots out of the equation by replacing them with computers, in it this plane was the first test,
the first crash test was a french airbus the was piloted by computer the second one is on lockheed experimental test grounds 3rd one not to sure about and the last one is from what i understand a USAF jet crash test
Last one was a test to see if airplanes posed any danger to nuclear power stations. They crashed an F4 into a block of concrete at 775km/h to see what damage it might do to a reactor containment building. The plane left only a 2.5inch deep gouge in the block. No further tests were conducted.
..and the results are still invalid. No engine, so no comparison whatsoever can be made with an entirely intact aircraft. Which is, most likely, what a pilot would like to have lift off the ground in the first place...? Simulations, by definition, are SUPPOSED to parallel reality. So this here ...simulation, as you aptly describe it, quite frankly does not simulate any real-world circumstance in any substantive way. Literally.
You're mistaken. Not only were the engines left in the plane but the fuel tanks were filled with water, which would make the plane much heavier than normal.
Furthermore, the test was to measure impact energy, not straight-up concrete penetration. Had the block been anchored the damage would have been greater, but by no means would the plane have penetrated the block. The fact that it only left a 2.5inch gouge is indicative of this.
Even if a jet engine powered itself along the same track at a higher speed, it's titanium shafts wouldn't simply vaporise upon impact. I'll believe something like that only when I see it, and no one sees it happening there. Get an unedited picture of the scar. You already know that it will be a defining moment.
Second is a DC-7. The Lockheed has twin rudders. The last remaining airworthy Constellation is parked a few miles from me and buzzes around about once a year. Don't know what engines it has but it's an amazing sound.
The first crash was not a test. It was a scheduled flight with passengers but made a fly by at an airshow to show off the ,then brand new Airbus A320, and the pilot was too low. There were fatalities.
No, :52 was a test crash to test a new device that would sever the wings (which hold the fuel) so that it would not catch the cabin on fire, the only problem is that the concept only works when the plane hits them head on
The plane shown from 0:52-1:20 was one they put experimental jet fuel in to test if it was less explosive in a crash than normal jet fuel (it obviously wasn't), and the one from 1:21-end was a test to see if a jet that crashed into the protective concrete wall of a nuclear power plant would penetrate the wall, and release radiation. I saw these both on tv.
those airline planes werent crash testing they were testing the fuel tank and trying to prevent to from exploding. the plane hitting the wall was crash test i think
Reality check, cars aren't planes. if a car drives at a wall and crashes it makes sense to test that and improve on it. If a plane flies at a wall going much faster, you all ready know whats going to happen. they need to improve safety mechanisms to prevent crashes. not build a million dollar plane than watch it crash and burn then sit back and think "hmm how can we make that more comfortable"
UM I DONT KNOW DUMBASS MAYBE SO THEY CAN KNOW IF THE PLANE IS GOOD TO FLY OR NOT BECAUSE IF IT DOES HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE THEN THE 400+ passengers are screwed YOU DUMBFUK "planes arent supposet to crash why would they test that" SAME THING HAPPENS FOR CARS, MOTORCYCLES, AND BOATS! TEST FIRST STUPID KID!
look who is swearing and using caps lock in a youtube comment moron, the chances of surviving a crash like the first one are really low so what I was saying is if its going to crash like that why test it. just make it strong as hell and hope for the best
ok, lets not test your next car u get. or if your too poor to even have one. when u die your gona blow up. i hope you do. everything w/ a motor in this earth gets tested, and your the first stupid as$hole that says "planes arent supposed to crash why test"..how stupid of u
I don see the point in testing airplanes on ground. If something goes wrong in the sky, and the plane goes down, we all know everyone is going to die, and airplanes are in the sky like 80% of the time.
i don't think it was a test, if it was a test y would they paint it in air france livery? seems like a waste, it would be in airbus house colours, it's the airplane company that does the testing not the airline. correct me if i'm wrong.
je confirme que le 1er avion est un A320 lors d'un vol de presentation de l'appareil (l'ordinateur a planté et l'avion n'a pu se relever comme prevu avant la foret et s'est planté) au debut des années 90...peu de mort mais un coup de frein economique a l'epoque pour l'avion le plus commercialisé actuellement.
Kirmm is right. This first crash was not supposed to happen. They where testing an automatic landing system. There where only test pilots onboard, though.
The 707 crash happened in late 1984 or early 1985 and was conducted in Tucson AZ at the Davis Monthan airbase. They were testing a new gel fuel to see how it reacted in plane crashes. The idea behind the gel was to prevent the fuel from atomizing and exploding upon impact. It required different fuel pump designs due to the viscosity of the fuel. The added cost was supposed to be worth the lives saved in a crash, but in the end, it didn't work too well.
The first jet crash was of an Airbus A320 series aircraft, when they were in advanced testing stage with it. It was unplanned, it happened at the Paris airshow in '89 I believe, could have been '88. The pilot was killed but I believe everyone else onboard (19 if memory serves) made it. The computer flew it into the trees.
Air France airbus. A320 on a low level airfield pass for the audience. The pilots wanted to pull up and perform a 'go around'. The airbus had a safety system which prevented them from doing this, believing that the aircraft was on the runway and tried to force a landing. Unfortunately the on board systems won.
By the way, the 'fly by wire' description in relation to that Air France A320 has NOTHING to do with not needing a pilot. It is not the same as 'remote control'. There certainly were pilots on board, read up about the ensuing scandal relating to the investigation.
What a fool. The first was definitely not a crash test, it was just a crash - at Habseim in Alsace, France. People died. There was a big scandal about the ensuing investigation.
I concur with gregghill1982, the music is a bit crap. And what was the point of throwing an F4 against a wall? "Airplane unable to take frontal impact shock"
is this a new kind of drum & bass music?
IIKlaplonGII 3 months ago
To be honest, a car seems safer to me than an airplane. Even though it's very rare that an airplane crashes, in the rare case that it DOES, you're a lot less likely to survive than if you're in a car.
ACfireandiceDC 4 months ago
The first one was a computer controlled plane with no people in it
SplatterMW2 8 months ago
@SplatterMW2 Sorry pal, that was a pubic airport with numerous aircraft sitting on the ground. That is not where crash tests are conducted, and they don't run them into forests. Not to mention that the aircraft had a commercial carrier name and logo panted in it. No Carrier service in the world would allow there logo to be displayed on the side of an aircraft about to be deliberately crashed. Use your head. Think! Sadly that was a real crash and the numb nut that posted it didn't know either.
Ghstwn 6 months ago
@Ghstwn Nope, ur wrong :) they were testing a computer controlled plane ;) saw a documentory
SplatterMW2 6 months ago
@SplatterMW2 Nope. Everything I stated still applies. That type of testing would only be done in a controlled environment far from any public area. 30 years at McDonnell Douglas & Boeing gives me a bit of insite. I beleive you were mislead with this doucumenory you watched. If you know what it was,.. post it. I'm curious.
Ghstwn 6 months ago
The first one is a Crash test well not really it was a completly computerized test
koolkat602izhere 8 months ago
0:03 - fuck! It is not a crash test!
igoregin 10 months ago
This is not a crash test...
checkfinal 1 year ago
FYI the first is not a test, it was at an airshow when the pilot did I flyby. Unfortunately, when he applied full power, the aircraft didn't climb, and so It hit the trees. It's on wiki
simpledudeable 1 year ago
0:30 the pilots counld probably survive that in a real accident
haavardlill 1 year ago
The first one was an accident, they were testing the aircraft's ability to fly itself when they put a computer pilot in the plane.
Please don't hesitate to correct me if i'm wrong, please
simpledudeable 1 year ago
dumbo... the first one was a real crash
thejack544 1 year ago
dude the first one was real i saw it on the news/TV shows, it was a real plane crash in france and no one lived (obviously)
im99mining 1 year ago 2
Can't you see this are teh smoking gun - this video proves teh american government wer practicscing for 9,11 for YEARS lols OMG!!1
Spread teh word, the world must know the reel TROOF!! zomg lolzors
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade too many people died on 9/11 to make that funny
not cool
TheFr3sh1 1 year ago
@TheFr3sh1 Sorry, I wasnt' taking the piss out of the 9/11 victims, just the conspiracy theory industry that has grown up around the event.
Anyway, WHY ARE YOUR A BILDERBERRG!?! Lizards meet in smoking rooms to plan the SMOKING GUN!!>!!11 !
badnewswade 1 year ago
Komischer weise ist ist das flugzeug nicht pulverisiert worden oder ist verpufft XD
brot5 2 years ago
Yeh the first one was an A320 on a test flight. The FMC was in control when it went into trees, 3 people died as mentioned. The 707 was the one which was radio controlled.
Although the intention of the crash was to fly straight and level through a series of metallic hooks designed to rip the fuel tanks - as a test for the new fuel type. The controller made an error and slammed it into the concrete. Whilst it looks bad, the crash got passed due to little fire inside the cabin.
deathstardisco 2 years ago
@deathstardisco The A320 was a commercial flight making an airshow flyby, 3 dead 50 injured.
Lexxxicide 1 year ago
what is it with the music
sounds fucking stupid
dogmangg45 2 years ago 19
When I muted it I realised the music has weird whining sound effects on it, too
deathstardisco 2 years ago
@dogmangg45 sounds like an informational video for Al Quida hahahaha
CowboyTheHellUp 8 months ago
That second video was actually crash testing in Arizona lake Havana city....
87275jean 2 years ago
the 1st is real
it was in france
TheJohnMagnum 2 years ago
the fist plane was a real accident.. it was a real emergency landing in france.
camash0041 2 years ago
just lie down and hope for the best.
natakae 2 years ago
The first one wasn't a test. It was just simply a crash. It was an rc place.
Sokan1993 2 years ago
Lol that first been normal airbus crash at air show.
lookiSVK 2 years ago
No, it was a remote plane that crashed...
Sokan1993 2 years ago
It was a real crash. about 20yrs ago. No survivors..
gettuff2 2 years ago
OR it wasn't...
I've seen it on tv, and I've watched other vids on youtube, with audio.
Sokan1993 2 years ago
I saw it on TV when it happened..
gettuff2 2 years ago
Oh yeah? well congratulations, you just prooved to me and everyone else that you're an idiot.
Sokan1993 2 years ago
Because I saw an airplane accident on TV 20 yrs ago with the exact same footage I'm an idiot?
Oh this was you trying to land a plane on a simulator , I get it , just some computer generated likeness o a plane crash 20yrs ago. Pretty good visual effects my son.
When do you get out of school?
gettuff2 2 years ago
I haven't tried a plane simulator, yet. I would want to tho.
I got out of school 1 month and a day ago.
And this was a remote plane that crashed. No one was in it.
Sokan1993 2 years ago
Check in the background you will see all the features of an airfeild, allbeit a small one. Nobody would crash a plane on purpose in the vicinity of other aicraft... especialy a radio controlled one.
gettuff2 2 years ago
And when did I EVER say they crashed it on purpouse? I said it was an rc plane that crashed....
You need to fucking learn to read what other people write.
Sokan1993 2 years ago
only three people died and there was 150 on the plane
ned987 2 years ago
0.30! woah!
wikeewoo 2 years ago
thats what they used on 9/11
vince0o7 2 years ago
dude seriously just stfu you dont know what the fuck your even talking about
themeathammer93 2 years ago
i mean that they used rc planes
vince0o7 2 years ago
first is not crash test just crash :D
HRCZEPaNic 2 years ago 3
Nice music!
Robmatheson 2 years ago
See lexo30 below, the first crash was a manned airshow flight demo and there were fatalities. Not unmanned but yes, also not a "crash test".
realiteechek 2 years ago 3
i hope the wall was ok 0.0
connorummzeromax 3 years ago
the first plane you see wasnt an crashtest! it was an testflight with an unmanned airlane. Testing full computerized airplane.
delijn57th 3 years ago
vou
krisztian424 3 years ago
now that is a weird song
xxGLhrMxx 3 years ago
yes ! this is a weird song
mklkmr 3 years ago
Who expects a jet to do well in a crash test anyway?
geterdonein01 3 years ago
they werent testing the plane jackass they were testing teh wall !
zainy911 3 years ago
lol, but true ^^
skaribou 3 years ago
Moron!!! the first one wasn't a crash test.
biggestMetallicAfan 3 years ago 43
@biggestMetallicAfan yes it was and it was controlled by fucking peole u asswipe get ur facts straigt
GTAfan234 1 year ago
@GTAfan234 God your stupid, go kill yourself.
It wasn't controlled by people, it was the first fully computer piloted flight.
Your not in the aviation industry, you wouldn't know shit pal.
biggestMetallicAfan 1 year ago
@biggestMetallicAfan
You gassed ,who gives a shit about being a fucking ordinary pilot go fuck your self
GTAfan234 1 year ago
@GTAfan234 You are just a pissed little boy, who's all upset because you could never be a real pilot.
So you hate on those who have achieved that success.
biggestMetallicAfan 1 year ago
@biggestMetallicAfan its the same video just different angle... dumbass
tacticalshroom 1 year ago
@tacticalshroom Noooo shit!!!
biggestMetallicAfan 1 year ago
@biggestMetallicAfan um then re-read what you posted. jackass.
tacticalshroom 1 year ago
man that music is annoying
SodThisGiveMeABeer 3 years ago 3
Anf three people died in this accident ! Have some respect please !
jibuzzz 3 years ago
The first one isn't a crash test.
TehShizno u're a stupid bitch...
jibuzzz 3 years ago
OW that must hurt
hulluhomer2 3 years ago
THE 1ST IS DEFO NOT A TEST! it was an recently new airbus purchased by air france.. Had passengers and crew on it and it was supposed to fly, low, alongside spectators and crashed, some survived and others didnt!!!
lisacaraaimee 3 years ago
lisacaraaime ur a noob... nobody has been on the 1st air france plane they were testing a 100% autopilot flight ;)
Alib4 3 years ago
lol this is the first time i have ever posted a comment on youtube and im already getting abuse llf, shoosht. i was half micked when i wrote that. ;)
lisacaraaimee 3 years ago
Alib4, that first crash was not an unmanned plane. That's Air France 296, the Mulhouse-Habsheim airshow crash from June 26 1988. Three passengers died.
lexo30 3 years ago 3
who wants to bet the computers were macs xD
Furetgarcon 3 years ago 3
the first one was not a test crash it was a test drive but the plane was remote control but the remote failed so they dont test plane like that anymore.
hp92301inadelanto 3 years ago
there were 4 people in that plane, no more, but they all died.
gh3s047 3 years ago
music
coolglock19 3 years ago
The first one was not a test, but a real accident. The crew died when the autopilot malfunctioned.
tlaloc44 3 years ago 2
If that's the one i'm thinking off, the full load of passengers did too., and it was a fly by wire system malfunction.
sneakeypete 3 years ago
nobody died -_- its was an automated pilot test, no one was in the plane -.-
TehShizno 3 years ago
The second one was, yes, but i can't recall anyone ever doing an automated plane crash into a forest before. I'm sorry to say it, but that's a real accident.
sneakeypete 3 years ago
im telling you, i saw a documentary and this video was in it, they were talking about taking the pilots out of the equation by replacing them with computers, in it this plane was the first test,
TehShizno 3 years ago
yes.. they were testing it to see if it would land with no pilots!
joe133322 3 years ago
the first one wasn't a crash test at all.....it was a real crash on the maiden flight of that french jumbo.
penske13 4 years ago 3
not maiden but airshow
krbosak 4 years ago 2
wasn't this crash something about the first test of autolanding a plane (auto pilot) or something????
please correct me if i'm wrong :P
SherminatorNL 3 years ago
they all explode...
carsandcats34 4 years ago
the first crash test was a french airbus the was piloted by computer the second one is on lockheed experimental test grounds 3rd one not to sure about and the last one is from what i understand a USAF jet crash test
devilsreject910 4 years ago
Last one was a test to see if airplanes posed any danger to nuclear power stations. They crashed an F4 into a block of concrete at 775km/h to see what damage it might do to a reactor containment building. The plane left only a 2.5inch deep gouge in the block. No further tests were conducted.
ductonius 4 years ago
Bogus test result. No engine in the plane.
uyesu 4 years ago
its called a SIMULATION
devilsreject910 4 years ago
..and the results are still invalid. No engine, so no comparison whatsoever can be made with an entirely intact aircraft. Which is, most likely, what a pilot would like to have lift off the ground in the first place...? Simulations, by definition, are SUPPOSED to parallel reality. So this here ...simulation, as you aptly describe it, quite frankly does not simulate any real-world circumstance in any substantive way. Literally.
uyesu 4 years ago
You're mistaken. Not only were the engines left in the plane but the fuel tanks were filled with water, which would make the plane much heavier than normal.
Furthermore, the test was to measure impact energy, not straight-up concrete penetration. Had the block been anchored the damage would have been greater, but by no means would the plane have penetrated the block. The fact that it only left a 2.5inch gouge is indicative of this.
ductonius 4 years ago
Even if a jet engine powered itself along the same track at a higher speed, it's titanium shafts wouldn't simply vaporise upon impact. I'll believe something like that only when I see it, and no one sees it happening there. Get an unedited picture of the scar. You already know that it will be a defining moment.
uyesu 4 years ago
Second is a DC-7. The Lockheed has twin rudders. The last remaining airworthy Constellation is parked a few miles from me and buzzes around about once a year. Don't know what engines it has but it's an amazing sound.
uyesu 4 years ago
the fırst one isnt crash test it was real 300 or somthing ppl died!!
ingilizturk 4 years ago
actually only like, 3 out of 157 people died
pizza012345 4 years ago
what is the music ?
mirak63 4 years ago
No, Airbus were testing take off with computers instead of the pilots taking off. It went wrong.
Jonnerz1 4 years ago
that was the landing actually
vettedude418 4 years ago
Oh, well thats what I remember from seeing that video.
Jonnerz1 4 years ago
n00b pilot xD
olliebolllie 4 years ago
first wasnt a test i saw it happen
on tv
lizardman8512 4 years ago
yes, but without passengers, rc...
scarecrow0111 4 years ago
the first one was no crash test. it was the real deal.
fishmeats 4 years ago 2
Crash test huh??? They must have been listening to this music...
Porsche809816 4 years ago
nice musik :P
distur 4 years ago
The first crash was not a test. It was a scheduled flight with passengers but made a fly by at an airshow to show off the ,then brand new Airbus A320, and the pilot was too low. There were fatalities.
dave46563 4 years ago 2
O......M........G.......
gamewiz203 4 years ago
24sec the plane crash is damn nicee
redkiller123 4 years ago
the first one was a plane that could land itself by computer... turns out it cudnt...
tyfoxy 4 years ago
No it wasnt, it was a low pass at an airshow... The pilot was lower than he actually thought, why the plane crashed
bigolejono 4 years ago
the first 1 wasnt a test
bajesus666 4 years ago
music:
shackleton special session on tilos radio.
mixed up by dst
kisszanto 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kisszanto Moron!!! the first one wasn't a crash test.
emersondavis 1 year ago
damn weird 'music'... now i've got paranoia...
vigi86 4 years ago
LOL
fragtastic1989 4 years ago
what the fuck is this music?
towie91 4 years ago
nice music
sethmisek 4 years ago
the first plane is no a test
morales62126 4 years ago
the very fisrt crash wasn't a test.
alter656667 4 years ago
No, :52 was a test crash to test a new device that would sever the wings (which hold the fuel) so that it would not catch the cabin on fire, the only problem is that the concept only works when the plane hits them head on
leguitarist35 4 years ago
The plane shown from 0:52-1:20 was one they put experimental jet fuel in to test if it was less explosive in a crash than normal jet fuel (it obviously wasn't), and the one from 1:21-end was a test to see if a jet that crashed into the protective concrete wall of a nuclear power plant would penetrate the wall, and release radiation. I saw these both on tv.
Toadman1911 4 years ago
those airline planes werent crash testing they were testing the fuel tank and trying to prevent to from exploding. the plane hitting the wall was crash test i think
TunaFish359 4 years ago
Reality check, cars aren't planes. if a car drives at a wall and crashes it makes sense to test that and improve on it. If a plane flies at a wall going much faster, you all ready know whats going to happen. they need to improve safety mechanisms to prevent crashes. not build a million dollar plane than watch it crash and burn then sit back and think "hmm how can we make that more comfortable"
Fendertail92 4 years ago
FIRST CRASH IS NOT A CRASH TEST!
tincho35 4 years ago 2
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
FilmPA 4 years ago
first crash is not crash test
Timo88888 4 years ago
Last one was a test of concrete with deformable precipitates, jet was to simulate a suicide crash
instante101 4 years ago
planes aren;t supposed to crash. why would they test for that?
Fendertail92 4 years ago
UM I DONT KNOW DUMBASS MAYBE SO THEY CAN KNOW IF THE PLANE IS GOOD TO FLY OR NOT BECAUSE IF IT DOES HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE THEN THE 400+ passengers are screwed YOU DUMBFUK "planes arent supposet to crash why would they test that" SAME THING HAPPENS FOR CARS, MOTORCYCLES, AND BOATS! TEST FIRST STUPID KID!
eylshazuela 4 years ago
look who is swearing and using caps lock in a youtube comment moron, the chances of surviving a crash like the first one are really low so what I was saying is if its going to crash like that why test it. just make it strong as hell and hope for the best
Fendertail92 4 years ago
ok, lets not test your next car u get. or if your too poor to even have one. when u die your gona blow up. i hope you do. everything w/ a motor in this earth gets tested, and your the first stupid as$hole that says "planes arent supposed to crash why test"..how stupid of u
eylshazuela 4 years ago
the first one wasn't a crash test of the air france airbus, it had people it they were demoing a new design or auto pilot feature
Rjnicko 4 years ago
I don see the point in testing airplanes on ground. If something goes wrong in the sky, and the plane goes down, we all know everyone is going to die, and airplanes are in the sky like 80% of the time.
edik56 4 years ago
DEAD!
mrdistraction 4 years ago
you can see the first one on google earth
marcos915 4 years ago
even the music is weird
dirtybird2212 4 years ago
questo non e crash test QUESTI sono INCIDENTI VERI !!!
CrjsDj 4 years ago
They must use the remote control. If you have the experience driving the plane. It doesn't easy...
Thank for the nice show ,except the first one ...
gtamic 4 years ago
ONLY 1 one wasnt a test :P
zombie675 4 years ago
Only the last was really test....Weird Video...
pionikkeli 4 years ago
do not agree, only first one wasnt a test
zombie675 4 years ago
真的嘛???
vWElisabethWv 4 years ago
first scene wasn´t a test.........
coke17 4 years ago
The first scene wasnt a plane crash test ...
showfire 4 years ago
likin the music brudda
boyweasel 4 years ago
yo :)
kisszanto 4 years ago
yeah yeah yeah but! ....the music.. what gives?
chewtube20ten 4 years ago
wow, when the plane came right at the cam, awesome
nomezluke 4 years ago
i don't think it was a test, if it was a test y would they paint it in air france livery? seems like a waste, it would be in airbus house colours, it's the airplane company that does the testing not the airline. correct me if i'm wrong.
chicolover1 4 years ago
These are tests, because they are most likely old airplanes that they don't use anymore. That's why there are colours on the plane.
DJDaveEightTeen 4 years ago
The first one is NOT a test, it was real accident, there were 136 people on board, 3 died, and the plane was brand new.
LostZer0 4 years ago
It was remote controlled.
bunkfoss 4 years ago
wrong
LostZer0 4 years ago
Did you see that huge explosion! How did only 3 people die?
penguin902 4 years ago
" lol u morans its all crash test. All airplanes are controled remotly from a safe distance. besides who starts a phantom with no gear?
"
Your the idiot.
inhellafghanistan 4 years ago
je confirme que le 1er avion est un A320 lors d'un vol de presentation de l'appareil (l'ordinateur a planté et l'avion n'a pu se relever comme prevu avant la foret et s'est planté) au debut des années 90...peu de mort mais un coup de frein economique a l'epoque pour l'avion le plus commercialisé actuellement.
darkedge1973 4 years ago
kinda odd how they trash those planes
livingopen 4 years ago
mmmmmmmmmm planes are good
jsr942 4 years ago
Kirmm is right. This first crash was not supposed to happen. They where testing an automatic landing system. There where only test pilots onboard, though.
Miklus023 4 years ago
The 707 crash happened in late 1984 or early 1985 and was conducted in Tucson AZ at the Davis Monthan airbase. They were testing a new gel fuel to see how it reacted in plane crashes. The idea behind the gel was to prevent the fuel from atomizing and exploding upon impact. It required different fuel pump designs due to the viscosity of the fuel. The added cost was supposed to be worth the lives saved in a crash, but in the end, it didn't work too well.
silicon212 4 years ago
lol u morans its all crash test. All airplanes are controled remotly from a safe distance. besides who starts a phantom with no gear?
baskethoopler 4 years ago
The first jet crash was of an Airbus A320 series aircraft, when they were in advanced testing stage with it. It was unplanned, it happened at the Paris airshow in '89 I believe, could have been '88. The pilot was killed but I believe everyone else onboard (19 if memory serves) made it. The computer flew it into the trees.
silicon212 4 years ago
Exactly as far as I can remember
tymo7777 4 years ago
First shot where airbus crashes into the woods is not a test. People died there. R.I.P.
Kirmm 4 years ago
the background music is crappy lol!!
patchspin 4 years ago
r,i,p 4 the plian not the fake people
wjj8 4 years ago
wtf is with that song?
hondasforlunch 4 years ago
this is not a test,,, people died. so UNDERSTAND
kappa286 4 years ago
its no crast "test" people die, minimum de respect
fireoil 4 years ago
minimum de respect , loooool fuck your french =)
ozien 4 years ago
Air France airbus. A320 on a low level airfield pass for the audience. The pilots wanted to pull up and perform a 'go around'. The airbus had a safety system which prevented them from doing this, believing that the aircraft was on the runway and tried to force a landing. Unfortunately the on board systems won.
jbwm1 4 years ago
By the way, the 'fly by wire' description in relation to that Air France A320 has NOTHING to do with not needing a pilot. It is not the same as 'remote control'. There certainly were pilots on board, read up about the ensuing scandal relating to the investigation.
timmykominet 4 years ago
What a fool. The first was definitely not a crash test, it was just a crash - at Habseim in Alsace, France. People died. There was a big scandal about the ensuing investigation.
timmykominet 4 years ago
the number one Downtempo set!
kisszanto 4 years ago
music:
shackleton session from DST
datastormer uw hu
kisszanto 4 years ago
holy shiiiiiieeeeeeetttt!!
tixetixe 4 years ago
hahaha the music..its like a bootleg indian tribe's music...hahah WTF
jtfraijo 4 years ago
early bird gets the worm
bozohomo 4 years ago
I concur with gregghill1982, the music is a bit crap. And what was the point of throwing an F4 against a wall? "Airplane unable to take frontal impact shock"
johnnyduxford 4 years ago
what crap music
gregghill1982 4 years ago
omg the second plane...
NooBSkywalkeR 4 years ago
If you knew the 1st one wasn't a test, why did you put it on?
SouloftheDragon 4 years ago
i dont know, this old video from me, i dont remember
kisszanto 4 years ago