Stearman XA-21 - The One That Didn’t Make It

[@davidherbst]

As someone who has worked in the US auto industry, and watched the "Big 3" move subsidiaries and weaker partners around like chess pieces in a casual Sunday game in the park, I think your speculation about Boeing being responsible for the XA-21's fate is in no way wild. Probably spot on.

[@johnwriter8234]

My Dad was styling designer GM Tech Center, Warren, Michigan..( he was also TBM Radio-Gunner)

[@davidherbst]

@@johnwriter8234 my dad worked at the Tech Center! He was too young for WWII, but he flew transports in the USAF in the 50’s.

[@johnwriter8234]

@@davidherbst cool..my Dad started with FISHER BODY, then retired 1986 , he hated working for BOC at that time.

[@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992]

**coughs** Preston. Tucker.

[@sharlin648]

Interesting aircraft, never heard of this one for sure! :) And it does look like it escaped from an alternate universe where Herr Heinkel emigrated to the USA pre WW2 and started designing aircraft there for them with that big greenhouse!

[@javiergilvidal1558]

Definitely! It really does look German ....

[@RMJTOOLS]

Beat me to it. Only thing missing is an MG34 poking out the front.

[@drmoss_ca]

I'd say that glasshouse inspired the Ju388.

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

Junkers 88

[@crabby7668]

I thought greif as soon as I saw it.

[@lucasokeefe7935]

I can imagine that radio operator making a right vaudeville act out of his roles: Sitting in the rear gun, seeing a bogey, going back to the radio and informing himself of the bogey, then going back to the gun to try and shoot it :P

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

"He's cutting below! Ventral gunner, get that guy! Oh shit, I AM the ventral gunner!"

[@PaulMcElligott]

I could almost imagine a Charlie Chaplin silent movie about that radio operator.

[@johnladuke6475]

I was picturing him spending most of his time in the dorsal turret, until his target moves out of his field of fire... then sliding down to use one waist gun with each hand while operating the ventral one with his feet. Just wildly spraying bullets all around the plane hoping to hit something, anything.

[@extremetea]

They recruited that position from among vaudeville one man band acts. They tried plate jugglers but they couldn't operate the radios as well.

[@scrubsrc4084]

Just like the he111.

[@yes_head]

Nice one, Ed. The main failing I can think of is the range. 700 nm is just not going to cut it in any WWII theater.

[@imbok]

The XA-21 with the original cockpit so closely resembles German approaches (JU88/188, etc or the He 111) as to be a bit uncanny. Layouts like that have to be lower in drag than the stepped windscreen design. Taken on it's own, the original is quite sleek, clean and modern.

[@jon9021]

I noticed the similarities as well.

[@dougreid2351]

My faith in your ability to unearth historical gems is boundless! Very well done indeed. DOUGout

[@bigblue6917]

Interesting that it was a Maryland which first reported the deparcher of the Bismarck. When the British Royal Navy lost contact with her later it was a Catalina which found her again. This time the American connection was even closer as the man who spotted the Bismarck, the pilot of the Catalina, was an American. As America was still technically neutral at this time this was not mentioned until much later.

[@brianargo4595]

Departure?

[@sugarnads]

Its just the Royal Navy.

[@bigblue6917]

@@brianargo4595 thanks Brian. I've just been having one of those days today

[@bigblue6917]

@@sugarnads I tend to do that in case some my not be aware of that fact

[@kellybreen5526]

One of the Senior officers on Rodney was an American exchange officer, and had Rodney taken a hit like POW had in the Denmark Staight His Majesty's Ship could have been actively engaging Germanys top warship with a Yank in command. Source Ballard's book from 30 years ago. This is in the narrative. I will try to find his name. If I do I will add it to the edit.

[@maxrudder6091]

They needed the capacity in Wichita for B-29 construction, which was the most expensive defense project of the war. Much bigger bucks involved. That is, of course, just speculation on my part, but I believe they were already in initial development.

[@JGCR59]

I think it was the engine. The P&W Twin Hornet was never used on any operational aircraft and according to Wikipedia, only 30 examples were ever built. So maybe the engine was not delivering the power it promised or had reliability issues?

[@tedstrikertwa800]

Thanks for all the time, effort & research you put into your videos Ed. I really enjoy learning about these aircraft. Aircraft that rarely ever saw the light of day in books, documentaries & TV programs.

[@chunkblaster]

Accidentally designed a JU288 lol

[@chuckcawthon3370]

Never seen nor heard anything about this plane ever. Great History Lesson. Again Well Done Sir.

[@kevinludlow7561]

Fascinating, perhaps the apt phrase "rug pulled from underneath them" applies. Perhaps the radio operators concerned that a broom would also be supplied to be suitably placed on/in them to add to their duties of rear gunner in multiple positions led to nefarious deeds to kipper the aircrafts chances!?

[@tomlobos2871]

my guess it is that boeing rather integrated subdivisios to make the biggest single project of that war happen. the B-29. development was ongiong when stearman as a company stopped to exist. so decisions might have been made in foresight for not occupying future production capabilities.

[@christoffermonikander2200]

It is funny that the greenhouse cockpit version looks like a Heinkel 111 while the stepped cockpit version looks like a Liberator.

[@douglee2438]

It’s also similar to the B-29. Since Boeing owned Stearman, wonder if some of the engineers that worked on it, transferred and worked on the B-29?

[@danpatterson8009]

Having been there twice, I can say that having an independent company within a company is not a sustainable situation!

[@That70sGuitarist]

In a way, perhaps it's for the best that the Stearman didn't enter service, since from the side or behind it bears a very strong resemblance to certain versions of the ubiquitous Ju-88. Many friendly fighters would've wanted to have a go at it!😉

[@aj-2savage896]

Think Bell Airacuda.

[@robertguttman1487]

The XA-21 always reminded me of the Bristol Blenheim. Even the manner in which the pilot's enclosure was modified is reminiscent of the change Bristol made from the Blenheim Mk I to the Blenheim Mk IV. As the presenter notes, Stearman had been a subsidiary of Boeing but had operated with a large degree of independence during the 1930s. Boeing acquired Stearman during a period when Boeing became the head of a huge aviation conglomerate that also included Pratt & Whitney (the engine manufacturer) and United Air Lines. During the early 1930s the government perceived that state of affairs as a violation of Federal Anti-Trust Laws and forced Boeing to divest itself of most of those assets, although Stearman was not among those assets. However, Stearman was in Wichita, which is in Kansas, near the geographical center of the United States, while Boeing is, and always has been, based at Seattle, in Washington State, at the extreme North-Western tip of the country. It is roughly 400 miles from London to Edinburgh, but it is over 1,400 miles from Seattle to Wichita. To put that into perspective, it is more like the distance from London to Warsaw. That was a very long way off in the days before the internet, which was why Stearman retained a great deal of autonomy. However, once WW-Ii began that situation changed. Boeing began to take on a great deal more work and, in consequence, began to take a great deal more interest in their far-off plant in Wichita, which became re-styled as "Boeing Wichita". In fact, Boeing became so busy that the company even manufactured some Douglas A-20 Havocs under license because Douglas could not keep up with demand. So, why didn't Boeing build the A-21 instead? One issue appears to have been the Pratt & Whitney R-2180 engines. They were only ever used in four types of aircraft, none of which advanced beyond the prototype stage, and that particular engine was never mass produced. However, I believe the main reason was that Boeing had other work in store for its' Wichita plant. Part of that work was the mass production of thousands of Stearman biplane trainers for the military. However, the principal reason why the A-21 was cancelled was that the the Wichita plant was intended for the bulk of B-29 Superfortress production. Around 1,600 B-29s were built at Boeing's Wichita.plant, compared with about 1,100 built at the company's plant at Renton, Washington. After WW-II Boeing scaled back work at Wichita and moved most of their work back to Washington State. The last aircraft to be developed at Wichita was a small observation aircraft for the Army called the L-15 "Scout" which, although marketed under the Boeing name, was actually the last Stearman design. First flown in 1947, Boeing does not appear to have made much of an effort to promote the project and it lost out in competition against the Cessna O-1 "Bird Dog", and only 12 examples of the L-15 were ever manufactured. www.all-aero.com/index.php/59-planes-b-c/1745-boeing-xl-15--yl-15

[@kellybreen5526]

The first Bolingbrokes had the original Blenheim nose moved forward about 3 feet so the navigator could have a table (required becaus the Bolly was intended for the maritime role) to work from. The far forward windshield caused reflection in the cockpit making landing difficult, so the table was moved and the Bolingbroke got the long stepped nose and cockpit, which was added to the Blenheim. The difference between Blenheims and Bolingbrokes is in the nacelles, and wings. Information shamelessly stolen from the William Green book from 1960...

[@McRocket]

FWIW - I think your theory makes very, good sense, Ed. I knew nothing of this aircraft before now. Thank you, Ed. ☮

[@travishutchings7068]

Nose by Junkers, tail by Arado

[@MImlac]

Nice insights on the Martin Maryland. Never heard of it before, interesting French service and nifty looking design.

[@Luddite-vd2ts]

At first glance, I saw the cockpit and thought this video was to be about the Junkers 388 or 488. Quite a striking similarity.

[@anthonyjackson280]

Ju 388 was also my first impression.

[@TimNelson]

Fascinating production. Bravo.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

1:48 The first iteration looks like a Ju-188 made love to an early model B-25... I suspect the plane's downfall was a combination of: 1) Insufficient power and 'stretch' to meet the new requirement. 2) Insufficient crew to handle all the required tasks (especially the defensive armament). 3) Other aircraft existing that handled the new requirement without the need for what would have been an extensive redesign.

[@kellybreen5526]

Stearman Bolingbroke, complete with the same mis- step with the forward mounted windscreen. The first Bolly's (distinct from Blenhiem's) had the same extended nose and moved the windscreen forward, with the same unexpected ill effects. Given the rough handling Blenhiems and Bolingbrokes suffered, it was probably lucky the design was not picked up.

[@redtomcat1725]

Thanks for bringing it to light !!!!!!!!

[@mredsterish]

At 09:15, is the building beyond the X-21 not the Wichita Municipal Airport facility?

[@leighcoulson2148]

Had a go wingwalking on a Stearman (not that there was any walking involved) ...awesome experience

[@ronjon7942]

Not something you hear every day.

[@luvr381]

Good one, Ed!

[@IndianaDel1]

Given the similar technological starting points looks and sounds, almost like an American rendition of the Bristol Blenheim I am struck how the Mk.I & Mk.IV noses changed in the same manner.

[@joevanseeters2873]

That Mosquito shaped glass bubble cockpit looks almost identical to the Junkers Ju-188, a German heavy fighter/bomber/night fighter aircraft of the same era. That cockpit must have provided excellent visibility for the pilot. Some other German fighters/bombers had similar full glass/glazed cockpit's like the XA-21. In fact, quite a few of the German aircraft has those style cockpits. The Heinkel HE-111 had a full glazed cockpit in a more round nose configuration like a Boeing B-29 Superfortress.

[@temy4895]

At a guess, could it be related to the contracts for the Model 75? At least in part.

[@drivernjax]

The original cockpit design for this a/c reminds me quite a bit of a German design called the owl if I recall correctly.

[@jeffsiegel4879]

By 1941 the B-17 was needed and in full production by Boeing. Remember, besides expanding their own factory presences, they contracted with both Lockheed and Douglas for them to build the B-17 under contract. Meanwhile, the landscape of the US' involvement in the war was looming, and the British purchase of the early-model B-17 hatched the new "E" model B-17. Boeing created two of the 3 top long-range bombers of the war including the B-29, which was a clear evolutionary advancement over the B-17 and B-24. Boeing's Wichita factory was responsible for so many B-17s and B-29s I can fully understand, why the XA-21 was abandoned, especially after you told us that the USAAC had changed the specifications for the plane. Their resources were needed for something more valuable.

[@atilllathehun1212]

The XA-21 first prototype has a nose configuration very similar to the later Junkers Ju188.

[@janxspirit6707]

Another great find of an aircraft lost in the midst of time, ty!

[@ashermil]

Wichita became a huge rework facility for the B-29 program as it ramped up to full production.

[@andrewstrongman305]

The prototype looked eerily similar to later Junkers and Messerschmitt twin-engine aircraft.

[@CAP198462]

My thoughts exactly, the Ju 88 and the Dornier Do 17 definitely.

[@gavindavies793]

If you listen closely, you can hear the scribbling of German pencils on note paper 😂

[@loumencken9644]

Convergent evolution?

[@andrewstrongman305]

@@loumencken9644 Quite likely.

[@Deviation4360]

Had it of been used in the ETOW it would have often nearly been mistaken for a Do-217 from most angles.

[@Philistine47]

The single fin, as opposed to the "Flying Pencil's" twin-tail design, would have been a giveaway from most angles. Assuming adequate training in aircraft identification, of course, which historically hasn't a given in anybody's armed forces.

[@Deviation4360]

@@Philistine47 Yes, and a good example of that is George Preddy's death from allied AA fire. Actually the XA-21 more likely would have been mistaken for an A-20, definitely still American shaped.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

A mystery indeed. Thanks for sharing!

[@mikehawes4935]

Marvellous video , never knew this, love these videos and watch all the time, but recently have seen glitching it's only this channel and a few others where the sound drops and we miss the first words of sentences for some reason

[@frankmitchell3594]

Compared to the nose design of the He111 which began with an extended nose and stepped windscreen and was modified to have the familiar greenhouse cockpit.

[@christopher5723]

Personally, I think the patricide theory, IE killed by Boeing makes the most sense to me for why it just disappeared.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

👍👍, w/ either nose, it's a looker. As for reasons for not being built, I'll go w/ U're closing comments. Many thanx Ed!

[@Gator_Bait_Motorsports]

First I ever heard of this aircraft, wasn't a very sleek design. I never really thought much past the PT-17 design as it was iconic on its own.

[@Onezmhu]

Small He-177 or Ju 288 🤓

[@jonathansteadman7935]

Yeah, thought the same, ju 288/388 👍

[@migueldelacruz4799]

Ditto in thought

[@oscarfloyd2678]

I almost wonder if this aircraft may have had some influence on the design of the B 24 liberator. I mean look at it, lengthen the wing, add an extra pair of engines, and give it a double tail, and basically The liberator. It just looks like one that was shrunk down a bit

[@mcpuff2318]

About the Bismarck, while the Maryland was responsible for confirming that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had left Bergen, before this they had been spotted by a Swedish aircraft launched from the aircraft cruiser Gotland. This report was forwarded to the british and was the first indication that the Bismarck was moving north

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

Well, yes, of course Boeing had plans for Stearman other than pursuing a medium bomber contract. You started to give the answer - Boeing fully absorbed Stearman in 1940 and it became its Wichita manufacturing plant, but then you stopped there. A simple check of history would show that by 1940 Boeing was working on the prototype XB-29, and then won its first production orders for the B-29 in 1941. The B-29 would go on to become the single most expensive US military program of WWII, more expensive than even the atomic bomb Manhatten Project. The former Stearman Wichita plant would be vastly expanded and go on to produce some 1,644 B-29 Superfortresses during WWII, the most of any of the four plants that produced the B-29 (the numbers vary by source. One source - airplanes-online - says the Renton Washington plant produced 1,122, the Bell plant at Marietta Georgia produced 668, and the Martin plant in Omaha Nebraska produced 311). As the early production B-29s were constantly being revised immediately after production, the Wichita plant was involved in doing most of this revision work on the finished planes that had just rolled off the assembly lines. So yeah, it wasn't some sort of conspiracy to crush Stearman and stop it from going after medium bomber contracts, Boeing simply had this huge and much more important project - the B-29 - in the works, and needed the Stearman plant to produce the B-29, the war winning weapon of WWII. Leave the piddling medium bombers to the other guys. The Wichita plant went on to also produce most of the 2,000+ B-47s that were built (numbers vary by source, one says only 1,300), and the majority of the 744 B-52s that were built (unclear which models and how many - one source says all 102 B-52Hs were produced in Wichita, another source says a total of 467 B-52s of the D, E, F, G, H models). Afterwards, the Wichita plant continued work on B-52 modifications and producing large components for Boeing's civilian airliners, which were then assembled in Seattle. Boeing would sell off various parts of this Wichita plant starting in 2005. You could, and probably should, do a whole other video just on the entire history of what happened to this Stearman plant in Wichita after 1940 and the failed XA-21 project, and all the aircraft it was involved in producing and modifying. It's a fascinating history and I've only touched upon the basic details.

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

He-219...

[@ratofvengence]

I'd love to see you do a vid on the Martin Maryland/Baltimore. Particularly Warburton's exploits in the Med :)

[@peterplaneman]

I was thinking what would be a nice easy rc plane to draw up plans and build I think this it be very different

[@thedevilinthecircuit1414]

I'll bet this aeroplane disappeared because the USAAC changed their requirement after their initial RFP due to congressional pressure from lobbying groups representing Douglas, North American, etc. This chicanery *still continues today* in the land of multi-billion-dollar military contracts. It's shite.

[@stevetournay6103]

Progression of nose designs on this thing recalls the Blenheim.

[@craigpennington1251]

Stearmans (biplanes), are undoubtedly the best in their class - bar none. That aircraft was good & was hidden on purpose or (scrapped) as you mentioned. I smell fish on this deal. (?).

[@DavidSiebert]

Honestly, Stearman probably was very busy with the PT-17 and Boeing figured all of the factory space that the XA21 would need would have been better used aka making more profit by building B-17s, and eventually B-29 which they were working on.

[@geordiedog1749]

What’s they craft shown just before the X craft? Looks lush!

[@maxsmodels]

My best guess is that it just got pushed aside as Boeing went on to bigger things and eventually was just scrapped.

[@aaaht3810]

One crewman manning four gun positions. Just couldn't squeeze one or two more gunners in there?

[@oh8wingman]

A question comes to mind when it comes to funding. Stearman built the aircraft on their own ticket as part of the agreement but since it did meet the specified criteria and the military took over the machine for testing, would the military then not have to pay for the prototype? Seems to me that would only be fair.

[@darwinsmonkeybutler2113]

If you drop this thing into a saucer of water does it expand into a Heinkel 177 Grief?

[@WildBillCox13]

"I see F/A-18s everywhere!" -Martian ADC.

[@patrickwentz8413]

Well I want answers.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent.

[@montaramike]

I truly love your videos. I know you prefer to cover obscure aircraft, but I would also love to hear your take on some of the more popular aircraft... just sayin

[@comentedonakeyboard]

It didnt disapear, it was converted into a stealth bomber

[@ChrisGBusby]

Bit of a cross between a Heinkel 111 and Bristol Blenheim :)

[@atleticodemanila5438]

X100 looks like a screwed up ju 288

[@kennenandersen]

You should do a vid on the North American O-47!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Good suggestion!

[@mirthenary]

In the original configuration, the pilot could've simply asked the bombardier to kindly lean to the side during takeoff and landing 😁

[@billsmith5166]

"Not actually crashing". Seems valid to me, : )

[@TimTheInspector]

Perhaps this development program was wound down so as not to dilute the efforts going into the B-17 at the time.

[@dyerwulf5459]

Very well done episode, even if you didn't say "aluminum".

[@marcusott2973]

I wonder if the guy that designed the He 219 ever saw this.

[@cyclonetaylor7838]

I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> 👍👍

[@HarborLockRoad]

Ach, zo, ver did i leave meine sketch pad? 😉

[@carlinglin7289]

That is curious. It "looks" like it should have been a competent if not outstanding aircraft.

[@88SC]

R-2180 Twin Hornets powered the original DC-4 (one of one?)

[@scootergeorge7089]

P&W doubled up the R-2180 to create the 4 row R-4360.

[@martinradcliffe4798]

A somewhat "German" looking machine with the original nose.

[@allendyer5359]

Bet many US Navy "Dive Bombers" were glad they stuck with idea of having that big round engine in front of them.

[@andyc3088]

Looks like the Junkers Ju 288 and Ju 388

[@marioacevedo5077]

at 1:16 "The Air Corps determined that for their future requirements attack bombers needed to be twin engine designs." AD Skyraider enters the chatroom.

[@stevetournay6103]

Skyraider came much later...and was Navy.

[@stuartpeacock8257]

And there was me thinking it resembled a Junkers 188 derivative

[@fredtedstedman]

looks like Hienkel DNA ?

[@lars1854]

Just from the look of it says cargo transport not attack plane.

[@johnreep5798]

Fairly handsome airplane.

[@wbwarren57]

Excuse your “take flight“ pun? Never!

[@migueldelacruz4799]

That poor aircraft.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Was Lindberg passing details to the Nazis?

[@Rom3_29]

Maybe plane sits forgotten in the barn, somewhere eastern USA? Or maybe Smithsonian has it? Instead Boeing B29, we’d have Stearman B29.

[@jagh1410]

Dont speculate Ed, dont go full Mark F. Like never.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

... just vanished ... Aliens ! :(

[@fury4539]

The North American NA-40 at first glance looks like a B 25, that leads me to think there is actually something to do between the two aircraft. Let me know if anyone of you reading this comment knows something.

[@gitfoad8032]

Looks very Ju88/188/388 & Ar234.

[@karlhastings8342]

When I first glanced at the thumbnail for the vid I thought it was a Do217.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

Anyone who has ever worked in corporate America (and probably most other countries) can tell you that political infighting is the surest way to kill a promising project.

[@christopherjackson2301]

Steersman might of had a winner on its hands

[@skidplate4150]

Palms were not greased ???

[@sealove79able]

I thought it was an US version of the ju88.