Focke-Wulf FW-190 D-models had spectacularly long nose, Bell P-39 models had the engine behind the pilot, and several planes (most, actually, now that I think of it) had fuel tanks and/or other stuff between the engine and the cockpit. There are other long nosed airplanes too, like the Italian Macchi C.202 and Romanian IAR-80... and many others. WW1 fighter planes (mostly) had the cockpits closer to the engines compared to WW2 fighters.
Commenting the model itself, the propeller blades' highest angle of attack area close to the spinner seems a bit too pronounced, but since it isn't really visible from all directions (I'm looking mostly at the topmost blade), I could be wrong.
The following assumes it's supposed to be a fighter plane. If it's supposed to be something else (like an aerobatic plane akin to Sukhoi Su-29 or Extra 300), some of the following won't apply...
Those exhaust manifolds will be a bloody nuisance for the pilot, mostly due to lessened visibility by both blocking some of the forward view physically and (inevitably) spitting oil, smoke and flames upwards to the sides, where it will more likely be spread to the canopy by turbulence than it would if they were pointed downward. I would put them down and if you still want to have something on the recession you obviously left for them, fill it with guns. 12.7mm (.50-cal) MG's or 20/30mm cannons along with a 30/40mm spinner mounted cannon sounds fine as far as armaments go. Could be complemented with wing mounted cannons on the pylons that seem to exist on the wings.
The nose has a flat cross-section next to the spinner on it's both sides, increasing air resistance quite a lot. If you could streamline that part to the spinner's shape and round up the intake edges, it'd look better IMHO.
Also, from aerodynamic point of view, it's centre of gravity looks awfully forward compared centre of lift. Could be perspective though, but I suspect that either the nose is too long or the tail too short. Or both. Could be the perspective, though, so I'll leave a rain check on this. On the same regard, the elevator control surface area seems pitiful compared to the vertical stabilizers - why three of them? On a plane like this, one in the middle would suffice... and be technically much more feasible and less prone to malfunctions. Two on the ends of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator would probably look cooler.
If you reduce the airframe length (shorten the nose by N, lengthen the tail by ½N), the plane should gain increased pitch maneuverability and improved weight distribution, which leads to less need for correcting the down pitch tendency at low speeds with elevators, which leads to lessened drag from elevators, which leads to better ability to maintain airspeed while maneuvering...
And, for visibility's sake, make the whole cockpit a bubble canopy. You already have the cockpit extruding upwards from the airframe; I don't think there's any reason to keep the back portion of it solid... well, with the exception of slightly better armour, but as a net effect, better visibility is more important for a fighter plane.
Could you post orthographic shots from sides and above (and perhaps from the front as well)?
As a whole, it looks really cool, though.
