"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
| nk.net...
|
| "Earl Watkins" wrote in message
| om...
|
| Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become
stars in
| the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be
the
| air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air
Force,
| It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the
USAF,
| and never even made Navy service.
|
|
| The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and
powerplants
| but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range,
low-level
| supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was
to be
| an
| all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.
|
|
| There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
| 8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
| was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
| upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
it was accepted.