Nice render! But as I'm an airplane freak and here is a textbox for feedback... can't help it but... If your intention is that it should look flyable: As the balance point should lie 1/3 in from the wing leadingedge, the tail is to short as it has to balance the weight of the engine, the weels has to be moved forward past this point or the plane would tip on the nose on landing. The prop is to big compared to the plane, the torque would be enormous and make the plane spinn around the propp instead (ok,ok maybe not). The wing area is to small. More wingspan or more streamlined fuselage (higher speed) or one more wing is needed. Why not try to model an SE-5 WWI fighter. You could amost use the fuselage as it is.

give it away for free..you're farther along in Wings than I am, but only thing I was gonna say is maybe bevel the front cube a bit inward, for better aerodynamics. I'll leave the rest of it to the experts..good start, keep on with it.

Uhhh... The plane is actually a bit longer than it looks from these pics. Maybe it's the lens angle...

This plane is designed to look like something from the WWI era. Back then there was a lot of experimentation with design. And a couple of them had the actual flaws that you mention Hellborn. Some of them actually did suffer from strong prop torque, but could use it to advantage in order to make sharper turns in a dog fight. Others may have nose dived if the gas tank was close to empty on landing. Some may have actually used extra weight in the tail, but I've never really had a look at their insides. A few aircraft supposedly had notoriety for killing as many inexperienced pilots as the enemy did. For dogfighters of the era, having a shorter fuselage was a good thing because it would also allow for tighter manueverability. You're right on the wing being a bit short spanwise, as I was wondering a bit on that myself. It probably needs more chord (I think that's the term) to it as well.

As for being boxy, vintage planes weren't the most aerodynamic things by todays standards. They had many span wires, struts, etc. that added drag - which one wouldn't consider using in construction on a modern plane.

Any other flaws or inaccuracies in this design are on my part. No actual on hand references were used. Not bad though, considering that this was a freeform (go with the flow kinda thing) design in Wings3D.

Looks really nice to me! As for your question, well, i don't know... I personally prefer free stuff, 'cause I'm always broke LOL :) Great job anyway. I wish i could model things too.

Yeah there are always critics, and if you model in 3D, there is a faction of modelers from the plastic and glue era (Sometimes balsa wood!) That think they know everything about modeling. I think is looks excellent!! And you weren't going for realism, I don't see any model numbers? It looks COOL!! And that's what counts!