High or low wing?

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?


Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?


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. Your comment about low wings
being easier for landing gear makes a lot of sense, many of those aircraft
stowed their gear in the wings, but I wonder if there were any other
reasons. The first jet fighters were also mostly low wing (f-80, f-86,
f-100, mig-15, mig-19, etc). Only the latest generation of fighters (f-15,
f-14, f-22, etc) are predominately high wing.



Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,


It allows the fuselage to be closer to the ground for easier
loading/unloading.


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



but all airliners have low wings?


BAe 146, ATR 72, Dornier 328, etc.


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?



Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?


Aerodynamic superiority.


To clarify here, by high altitude I meant planes that are designed to take
off and land at high altitudes - the pilatus pc-6 for example.

"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.