>>1045660>Why wouldn't they use a high-wing like cargo lifters do?1) Wingbox intrudes into the passenger compartment, instead of the cargo compartment. Of course, this is a problem with midwing designs like
>>1044169 as well. With a double-decker aircraft that have so many passengers you're going to have multiple jetways anyway, it may be an acceptable compromise.
2) Engine noise - this is the big one. There's no wing between the engines and the fuselage. Military cargo lifters are LOUD inside, and it's not just because they've declined to insulate the fuselage as much.
Oh, and the turbine discs go through the fuselage if you blow an engine and the engine housing fails to contain the parts.
The high wing design is good for so many reasons - lower fuselage is easier to load and unload cargo, engines are higher up and less prone to ingesting runway debris, shorter landing gear is stronger, lighter, and easier to retract... The only structural downside is you need a tall T-tail to keep the horizontal stabilizer out of the wing's wake at high AOA. If it were possible to build commercial airliners that way, companies would do it. But passengers would HATE flying on them due to the noise.
