yah, you might think that from a picture... but they didn't.
THEY DID NOT USE ANY INFORMATION FROM THE AIR FORCE TRANSPORT PROJECT ON
THE 747 PROJECT.
really I wish that could be in bold 48 point font... with a red glow and flashing yellow shadow.
This is like saying that the BAE 146 clearly was descended from this program, and that Airbus should be shutdown and all officers charged with industrial espionage because the A350XWB looks like a 787 with new cockpit windows.
What will convince you of this? clearly not the fact that the engineers on that program were... all off doing other things before the 747 became the third aircraft program Boeing was running at the time. So more or less the 747 got only the very young, or the rare person they could steal from other programs. It was behind the 737 which was behind the SST in terms of priority on resources.
How about the engineering aspect of it? The 747 is different in nearly every single detail that would force a change in the design. The 747 has 2 full decks, and one partial. The USAF
plane had 2. I do not know the details of the upper deck on the military program, but its certain that it has nothing in common with the 747 design since the bottom level would have been a flat load floor wide enough for two military pallets, and a minimum loading height so that bipedal spam powered loaders could be used at both ends if required. The 747 has a conventional under floor luggage/cagro holds for the lowest deck, and a flat load floor for the main passenger/cargo deck. Upper deck on the 747 was conceived only to remove the cockpit as a restriction on the nose loading of the freighter variant, and not even intended to have cargo or passengers when first presented to Pan-Am. The high wing placement would have required a wing box, and a second landing gear box with a very strong connection between the two to support the loads as they change from the weight being supported from the landing gear on the ground and suspended from the wings in flight. The 747 needs a much simpler structure given that its supporting the weight from the same wing box regardless if its on the ground or in the air. There would be nothing to gain at all from the USAF
program for the 747. different base design, different detail design, and most important different missions. If they were designing a freighter for operating large/heavy loads out of poor/small airfields with minimal support available, I'm sure they would have used the USAF
design as a basis. Since they were designing a new large passenger jet for Pan-Am with a expected "second life" as a large freighter... they didn't.