Bonus point for the original sketch resembles another product of Servesky/Republic's, the Servesky SEV-3

Bro's Speedrunning SP

my guy left as soon as he dropped this banger

@Weisbrich
A prototype of the "shortened P-47" as promised a few months back: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/689T1H

This is a vary interesting design

I am going to re build it

this aint 1950s this is 195 BBY

Congrats for silver my friend!

“VECTOR!
Committing crimes with both direction And magnitude.
OH-Yeah!”

I thought this was star wars for a second

@Weisbrich Nice

@Potatu Sure

I fixed the bomb thing.Can i post it?
@Weisbrich

This actually looks pretty good as a microfighter...

@TheTomatoLover needs to be gold

Bro is extremely underrated. You need to get to silver bro.

@Weisbrich
Napier Sabre engines? Those things are MASSIVE! And you used two of them?! No wonder why the airframe starts to look like the good ol' jug!
Yeah, I'm a P-47 fan, and when I see the rear cockpit my first instinct was literally "wait that jug be lookin' sus"...
.
..
... and the P-47 only used a 2000hp engine. Your monsters managed to reach the 6750hp benchmark.
.
..
... and why the "scissor lift" gun pod? And what happened to just loading the bombs under the wings (or the fuselage) like civilized people?
.
.
... and bonus nitpicking time™: the pitch authority feels a bit lacking for a plane of its size, and there are no gun sights. Still, the overall build quality is remarkable - it wouldn't look out of place among the portfolio of a plat, so for a first timer? It's simply marvelous.
.
..
... I'm now considering building a plane inspired by this and based on my existing prototype, a mangled P-47 with contra-rotating props and a Russian(?)/German(?) style canopy. I will credit you if I finally overcame my procrastination and started building it.
.
..
... and sorry for rambling.

Very Crimson Skies, what a beautiful aircraft

@ThomasRoderick I guess it's worth mentioning that this thing was envisioned to use two 24 cylinder sleeve-valve engines (I came up with the idea for the entire plane after reading about the Napier Sabre, and thought it would be ridiculous to stack them vertically). I have zero clue what the maintenence for one would be, let alone two of them plus all the shafts and everything. I really appreciate your insight

@Weisbrich Not really talking about how the design would affect people, more like the general serviceability of the plane and how reliable the design would be - the gearbox and fairing arrangement on this plane probably made it that lil' bit harder to service, while having two engines mated to the same driveshaft instead of, ya know, having an actual flat-12 engine (or whatever the actual number of cylinders the plane ended up with) there just meant more camshafts and oil pumps and whatnot to deal with. Most planes with contra-rotating props don't have different engines powering the different props, afterall: if one engine fails the dead prop instantaneously becomes dead weight - and it's harder to synchronize two engines to run at exactly the same RPM than just using a gearbox to make sure the two props turn at the same rate.
.
..
... and sorry for over-analyzing things - especially on someone else's very first plane. Just take it as the autistic rambling of the resident aspie, pay no heed.

@Weisbrich same here

@ThomasRoderick LOL. Never thought about how the configuration would effect people.

@WinsWings Thanks! Drawing out my ideas is my favorite way to make planes

I love when people created their own concepts. Starting to think and drawing the concept is a great thing for me. This definitely needs a Spotlight.

ZOGGIN' BOOTIFUL, BOSS!
.
..
... The engine arrangement would have the crew chief ranting and raving about not being paid enough, but everything else? Perfection.