"Ray" wrote in message
...

Okay, when I said all I really meant to say most, or a lot. What I was
thinking about in particular were the WWII fighters. I can't think of any
propeller driven fighter with a high wing.


Morane-Saulnier L, Bristol M. 1C, Fokker D VIII, Wibault 72 C 1,
Loire-Gourdou-Leseurre LGL 32 C 1, Dewoitine D 27, Morane-Saulnier MS 225 C
1, Loire 46 C 1, Nakajima Army Type 91, Focke Wulf Fw. 56 A-1, PZL P.7, were
all propeller driven fighters with a high wings.



This makes sense. But going back to WWII again, why were the early
transport aircraft (like the C-47) low wing?


Cargo aircraft of that era were not built for the purpose but adapted from
civil airliners.



Again I meant most instead of all, and I was referring to the larger
airliners (200+ seats). Basically, if all other things were equal, why
wouldn't they have made the 747 high winged, since some 747s are
used for cargo?


Used for cargo but designed for people. A low wing tends to be preferred
for people carriers for several reasons. Using a low wing gives the
passengers a better view, a high wing would have them looking at the engines
and unserside of the wings. The lower portions of the fuselage aren't going
to be used for the passenger deck anyway so it's a good place to put the
wing carry through structure, and the wing-fuselage junction makes a good
place to put the landing gear. A high wing would require the bulbous
appendages you see on the C-17 to stow the gear or giving up baggage/cargo
space.