This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath.
http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath.
http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
You have to wonder actually if that is even true (I've heard it as well obviously). Reason being Boeing may have been thinking SST wouldn't work or be practical (after all it wasn't) but it was easier to sell a 747 based on saying it could be used as a freighter primarily. If they had said it was just another long range high capacity plane the project might have never gotten approval because of the 'bet the company' risk.
Perhaps the 747 was a hedge (and it turned out to be a good one if so), but the design kind of implies otherwise IMO.
http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/CX-HLS-Transport-Study-2...
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=jWlaIWwcsiwC&pg=PA112 [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=C0gUyoYewhoC&pg=PT183
Flying wings work fine for bombers because the "cargo" is very dense and will fit into a short bomb bay.