A question of aesthetics

[AndyJWest]

A posting over at the RoF forum (http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewto...p?f=74&t=23950) had the temerity to describe the Spitfire as 'ugly'. Clearly deluded, but nevertheless requiring a response - and given the suggestion that a leading British WWI fighter was more beautiful, I pointed out that, to the contrary, if you cross one of these...

...with one of these...

...this is the most probable offspring:


Now, I'm all in favour of variety, and there is a certain charm to flying in RoF (apart from the Gotha bomber, which has no sense of direction, a rate of climb measured in feet per week, and an instrument panel evidently made from bits salvaged from an old tramp steamer, along with the rejects from an alarm-clock factory), but I'll never accept that anything made out of wood, wire, and old bedsheets can be as beautiful as something sculpted out of aluminium alloys. But am I right? Can anyone nominate a WW2 aircraft as ugly as a SE5a? I suppose one could cite Blohm & Voss's asymmetric efforts - but then what do you expect from an aircraft designed by shipbuilders, but otherwise, I'd say that the case is closed. I'd like to see the opinion of others though. Can you name a symmetrical WW2 aircraft as ugly as a SE5A?