Most small, single-engine aircraft do not have retractable landing gear.

That particular aircraft doesn't have retractable landing gear.

I've seen some additional reports now with verified details from the BBC and Reuters - and a proper landscape view of the impact - none of that side panel blurring business! Both news outlets confirm what you've said, converted light aircraft, and they also state that Ukraine forces have taken responsibility for the attack. I'm still amused that they rigged it for remote control and left the landing gear down the whole way!

While I am supportive of Ukraine's efforts to curb Russia's weapons production, I'm a tad confused by this video.

Initially we see a single-prop 2 person aircraft with landing gear down crash into a building and an explosion ensues.

Later in the video we see a still of a winged drone as the video informs us that Ukraine have been improving their drone fleet, obviously a fraction of the size of the aircraft we see in the crash.

Any possibility that someone has taken footage of a plane crash and spun a yarn from it? Or is there another explanation why the aircraft featured at the start of this video is nothing like the drones Ukraine have been using against Russian ships and other targets?

In the next simulation the door plug needs to self eject and the front landing gear needs to fall off like has happened to 737s this month.
Boeing is screwed. They designed their inspection system so they can remove the door plug, do required repair work, and reinstall it but call that “opening the door” so there’s not an inspection afterwards, which happened on the plane that lost its door.
Worse, if the photos Boeing gave the press are correct, they are using jam nuts (two thin nuts that loosely “jam” together under pressure only if properly installed) instead of castle nuts and cotter pins (that cannot unscrew) on bolts that will fall out if they’re not secured. That is a horrible design flaw if accurately reported, and explains all the loose bolts found on other planes!
American and Alaska are already talking to airbus and considering cancelling their orders from Boeing completely.

During my flight training, I was always taught that a highway or paved road was the last place to land in an emergency. For one, power lines tend to cross paved roads and by the time you can see them, it's too late to avoid them. Another is that it endangers others on the ground. Many pilots lose their lives trying to save the plane in an emergency. The best advice I got during my training was that when the plane quits on you, it's now your life boat. Use it to save your life, don't risk yours to save it.

During my flight training I also worked at a small GA airport. I got to know a lot of the pilots there. One owned a construction company and would often fly over his construction sites to survey them from the air. He came out that morning, I filled up his plane and he never returned. I didn't think much of it, although he rented a hangar from us, he also had a private air strip too.

A few days later, I found out that he was killed making an emergency landing. While flying over the construction site, his engine quit and he tried to land on a road. A car pulled out from a side street and he pulled up to avoid it. The landing gear snagged a power line, which caused it to nose dive into the ground and rupture the fuel tanks. It caught fire, and people tried to get to him to pull him out. They said he appeared to be alive and trying to get out, but the fire spread too fast.

The way I found out was a bit shocking. Investigators from the NTSB showed up to review our fuel and maintenance logs. We have to perform daily tests on the fuel and equipment, and I was the one that did those tests the day he was killed. It wasn't the fuel that caused the engine to quit, but that thought that maybe I screwed up the test and caused it and knowing he probably burned alive haunted me. That's something I'll never forget.

pretty funny that the landing gear lever has a useless wheel on it. Don't want to pull the wrong one!

A few years ago I had lunch at a restaurant with my extended family for some event (can't recall specifically), and as we were standing around talking in the parking lot afterwards, the AN-225 flew over us. We were pretty close to the airport and it was either landing or taking off, so it was quite low to the ground and surprised the hell out of us. We didn't have the slightest idea what it was, but the configurations of the landing gears and six jets made it clear it was damned unusual. Found out later that the beast was one-of-a-kind and a bunch of people were at the airport watching for it, which made it clear how lucky we were to randomly catch that.

I had no idea there was a propeller-based counterpart. I don't know enough about aerodynamics to understand how stacking the propellers like that makes any sense, so I'm just going to assume it's some sort of Soviet technomagic.

There was an interesting comment on this vid by Valentyn Mykolajovych, from Antonov,

Этот борт 13.01.1989 года во время взлета в Адене (Йемен) из-за преждевременной уборки шасси потерпел аварию. В течение 8 месяцев восстанавливали на месте и 12.12.1989 года своим ходом перегнан на капитальный ремонт в Киев. С тех он у нас, в КБ "Антонов".
Практически все транспортники имеют свои аналоги (Ан-12 и С-130, Ан-124 и С-5), а для Ан-22 и Ан-225 аналогов нет.
Спасибо за видео, TopFelya!

This aircraft crashed during takeoff on 13.01.1989 in Aden (Yemen) due to premature retraction of the landing gear. Within 8 months it was repaired on the spot and on 12/12/1989, under its own power, was returned to Kiev for major repairs. Since then, it is with us, at the Antonov Design Bureau.
Almost all cargo planes have their western analogues (An-12 and C-130, An-124 and C-5), but there are no analogues for the An-22 or An-225.
Thanks for the video, TopFelya!

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by oritteropo.

Darn. Well it's a good backup for:

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/AV-8B-Harrier-Lands-without-Nose-Landing-Gear-on-a-stool

Looks like he ran the battery down so low it auto-landed. Note the flashing red reflected on the landing gear. Classic and very common n00b move. He's lucky his Naza had the auto-land rather feature rather just crashing on his neighbours' house.

Your video, Landing a giant 747 with one of the landing gear UP/broken, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 27 Badge!

Dutch journalist Jeroen Akkermans keeps uploading scores of pictures taken at the MH17 crash site to his Flickr account. No corpses, just debris -- no warning neccessary.

A few interesting pictures, if you don't mind amateur forensics:
- left wing, top side: damaged by debris coming from the fuselage at an outward trajectory
- window panel, aft-most cockpit window, port side: shredded by shrapnel, downward trajectory?
- second door from the front, port side: no damage from shrapnel or debris
- port-side hatch of the forward landing gear: no damage

So, explosion in the foward-left quadrant, above the cockpit?

I know, I know -- wild speculation, utterly without a point. But it's infinitly less depressing than looking at the latest pictures from Gaza. Bad days to be a news junkie...

Edit: rear door, starboard side -- no damage