Most crashed type?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mind in the gutter, knickers in a twist.
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most crashed type?
Does anyone know what type (as in PA28, C210 etc) of aircraft has the highest "write-off/number registered" ratio?
Just curious.
Just curious.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're after the sort of information that I suspect yer after Birdy, you might need to be a bit more specific. Otherwise, the "most crashed" type statistics are likely to include a majority of instances of so-called "pilot error". I think that what you might be after is the type, or types, that might be less reliable than any other.
You might be better off doing some research on the ATSB web site, or whatever it's called these days.
You might be better off doing some research on the ATSB web site, or whatever it's called these days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mind in the gutter, knickers in a twist.
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah OzEx I did think about the "pilot error" element, but then I thought, OK pilot error could be included anyway, to get the ratio regardless of the cause. I realised that I'm not really after the reliability info of each aircraft type. (I thought about that, then realised "pilot-prevented-accident" element may reduce the accident rate for damn unreliable equipment anyway 
)
ATSB site doesn't seem to offer any statistical information
)ATSB site doesn't seem to offer any statistical information
Guest
Posts: n/a
I remember reading in a US GA mag that the 2 'most crashed/hrs flown' types were the Pressurised 210 and Piper Malibu Mirage. I think it quoted something like lots of low time, low recency owner operator PPLs combining with a fairly complex and quick machine as being contributors.
Please don't quote me as it's going quite a ways back thru the memory banks.
Maybe try the FAA website or american websites, there seem to be endless studies of this type over there.
Hope it helps.
Please don't quote me as it's going quite a ways back thru the memory banks.
Maybe try the FAA website or american websites, there seem to be endless studies of this type over there.
Hope it helps.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello little Birdy (splat)
Sorry birdy could'nt help my self.
I suppose that the ratio of registered to written off would be a good enough place to start. I don't have the figures but you can get the number of aircraft types from the CASA web site under the aircraft register, and then do a search for crash by aircraft type on the ATSB site (if its avaialble as it is on the NTSB site).
This would give you a start point for your research.
Anecdotialy the most common types on the Aussie register are the C172 follwed by the PA28 and there are a lot of crashes in these types, but they certinaly don't have the worst record.
Again anecdotialy I think you will find the following, which is my guess, are well represented with prangs to number on register :
MU2 (love em or hate em)
Lancair/Glassair Turbine conversions (not good)
R22 ( well thay are just a horse/motorbike after all)
Some of the cropduster types, (say no more)
Lots of aircraft have reputations like the chippie (DHC1) for spinning and the MU2 for ice but are very safe to operate when this is considered.
My favourite generalisim is the A36(bonanza) and the Doctors who seem to love bying them as much as crashing them.
PS the most dangerous aircraft is the one that is in the air and I am on board, cause its the one most likely to hurt me.
I suppose that the ratio of registered to written off would be a good enough place to start. I don't have the figures but you can get the number of aircraft types from the CASA web site under the aircraft register, and then do a search for crash by aircraft type on the ATSB site (if its avaialble as it is on the NTSB site).
This would give you a start point for your research.
Anecdotialy the most common types on the Aussie register are the C172 follwed by the PA28 and there are a lot of crashes in these types, but they certinaly don't have the worst record.
Again anecdotialy I think you will find the following, which is my guess, are well represented with prangs to number on register :
MU2 (love em or hate em)
Lancair/Glassair Turbine conversions (not good)
R22 ( well thay are just a horse/motorbike after all)
Some of the cropduster types, (say no more)
Lots of aircraft have reputations like the chippie (DHC1) for spinning and the MU2 for ice but are very safe to operate when this is considered.
My favourite generalisim is the A36(bonanza) and the Doctors who seem to love bying them as much as crashing them.
PS the most dangerous aircraft is the one that is in the air and I am on board, cause its the one most likely to hurt me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mind in the gutter, knickers in a twist.
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your help & suggestions, guys!
Interesting stuff. I'll have a look at FAA/US sites and see what I can find.
Richo, you mean like "V-tail doctor killer" (any truth in that? I've heard about Bonanza and doctors crashing them)?
P.S. Funny usernames, "herpersonicsnal" and "Flyingscarecrow"
Interesting stuff. I'll have a look at FAA/US sites and see what I can find.
Richo, you mean like "V-tail doctor killer" (any truth in that? I've heard about Bonanza and doctors crashing them)?
P.S. Funny usernames, "herpersonicsnal" and "Flyingscarecrow"
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birdstrike,
Have you considered contacting the folks that do Hull Insurance?
Cannot mention names here of course.
They are right into stats, and if your enquiries are general enough and not likely to be of use to a competitor, they might share.
For my money, most prangs/hours flown would be kitset "Baby Bell" chopper, closely followed by Holden Utes.
Have you considered contacting the folks that do Hull Insurance?
Cannot mention names here of course.
They are right into stats, and if your enquiries are general enough and not likely to be of use to a competitor, they might share.
For my money, most prangs/hours flown would be kitset "Baby Bell" chopper, closely followed by Holden Utes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
G'Day Flying S.C. I think I read the samew article from "Aviation Consummer", about 15 years ago.
They did a survey of common types in use and how often they crashed/flying hour.
The results were very interesting. The least safe/most safe in each categoiry were, from memory:
2 place: single Grumman/C152.
4 place fixed gear SE: Grumman Tiger/C172.
SE Retract.: V-Tail Bonanza+Piper lance(equal last)/C210.
Piston twin: C411+ Aerostar/PA31.
Light Turbo prop: MU2/Kingair.
Small Jet. Lear 24+25/ Cessna Citation.
The cynics amongst us might suspect that the survey was sponsored by a manufacturer in Witchita! However the results make some sense:
Grummans: Pathetic, fragile nose wheel, low aspect ratio wing. Funny fule system vs. Cessna singles: High wing, stable, stone simple fuel switching, robust construction, docile handling.
V-Tail Bonanza: well, say no more!
C411: and Aerostar: guesome SE performance: C411 has a "rubics cube" fuel system. PA 31 so simple even I could fly it.
MU2: they dont call it the "Widow maker" for nuthin'! High wing loading , heaps of anhedral, spoiler things that make it turn, won't carry enough ice to chill a Bundy and Coke. Kingair: easy systems and stable and forgiving as a Presbyterian Minister's
wife.
LR24: well... a rocket apparently, like a fighter. Probably explains why it came last. Citation: Not really a jet anyway, but what the hey!!??
They did a survey of common types in use and how often they crashed/flying hour.
The results were very interesting. The least safe/most safe in each categoiry were, from memory:
2 place: single Grumman/C152.
4 place fixed gear SE: Grumman Tiger/C172.
SE Retract.: V-Tail Bonanza+Piper lance(equal last)/C210.
Piston twin: C411+ Aerostar/PA31.
Light Turbo prop: MU2/Kingair.
Small Jet. Lear 24+25/ Cessna Citation.
The cynics amongst us might suspect that the survey was sponsored by a manufacturer in Witchita! However the results make some sense:
Grummans: Pathetic, fragile nose wheel, low aspect ratio wing. Funny fule system vs. Cessna singles: High wing, stable, stone simple fuel switching, robust construction, docile handling.
V-Tail Bonanza: well, say no more!
C411: and Aerostar: guesome SE performance: C411 has a "rubics cube" fuel system. PA 31 so simple even I could fly it.
MU2: they dont call it the "Widow maker" for nuthin'! High wing loading , heaps of anhedral, spoiler things that make it turn, won't carry enough ice to chill a Bundy and Coke. Kingair: easy systems and stable and forgiving as a Presbyterian Minister's
wife.
LR24: well... a rocket apparently, like a fighter. Probably explains why it came last. Citation: Not really a jet anyway, but what the hey!!??
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: no fixed address
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about anything flown by the "Devine Wind" boys...
In the space of 45 minutes on 7th December,1941, 321 aircraft (Mitsubishi A5M, A6M, Ki21, G3M and Nakajima Ki27's) were bent.
Apparently, they were also quite hard to fly, and with only a week of flying training behind them, they probably would have crashed anyway.
In the space of 45 minutes on 7th December,1941, 321 aircraft (Mitsubishi A5M, A6M, Ki21, G3M and Nakajima Ki27's) were bent.
Apparently, they were also quite hard to fly, and with only a week of flying training behind them, they probably would have crashed anyway.
9 hours total time to become an instructor in 1916.
But VH-ABC, I think you might be a little bit out in your time frame.
The gentlemen flying the Mitsubishis, Aichis, Nakajimas etc on 7 December 1941 were still able to use them to knock the stuffing out of Darwin on 19 February 1942.
But VH-ABC, I think you might be a little bit out in your time frame.
The gentlemen flying the Mitsubishis, Aichis, Nakajimas etc on 7 December 1941 were still able to use them to knock the stuffing out of Darwin on 19 February 1942.
