Relation between fuselage and wingspan?

No true ratio can be adhered to. The Wing is designed to get the most lift from a given aerodynamic surface area, with modern designs such as A380, the wing shape is so complex and “Perfect” that the span is kept short (Airport limitations drove the dimensions anyway). If the A380 was designed in the 60’s, it’s span would be massively larger. The Gull shape also assists in getting the lumps clear of runway debris. As for Fin and tailplane, these depend on their distance from the turning moment. A long thin tube such as a DC8-62 can get away with relatively tiny empenage aerofoils, because being so far back they have a bigger affect on the movement of the craft. Again referring to the A380, it’s fin is massive because the fuse is proportionally short so it has to direct a lot of air to get enough force to move the machine about.

As for Chord ratios, as much as 20:1 at the outboard end of a wing. The inboard can be as little as 4:1.

As stated, once Supersonic is in the sums, a whole new set of physics comes into play.

There was a time when the rule of thumb was fuselage = 0.75 wingspan ( not consistent but very common), then when you get to parrafin burners it all goes pear shaped as you start getting things like the F-104 (wingspan without tip tanks 21ft/fuselage less pitot tube 54ft)

Hi
Probably no easy answers on these questions.
Historically even professional design teams dont always get it right.
The DHC Chipmunk was obviously a pretty good basic design and did not have any major aerodynamic mods I am aware of.
A large number of a/c historically were designed with inadequate fin area.

regards baz