Somewhere in this site is a discussion regarding planes with all-swoopy lines vs. planes with lots of rule-straight lines.  The consensus can be boiled down to:

Curvists: "Swoopy curves make your flight look better by hiding all those little unavoidable errors.  They make your whole flight look smooth.  Lots of straight lines magnify them and reduce your flight score."

Straightists: "Rule-straight lines enhance all the straight lines in your pattern, and really make them pop for the judges.  This makes your whole flight look more precise.  Swoopy curves mush everything together and reduce your flight score."

For a visual summary, place pictures of Dick Mathis's "Chizzler" and Bob Hunt's "Genesis" together, and meditate upon them.

As you note, Tim, it's a matter or perspective. I've done both types and haven't noticed much in the way of one shape or another having as much effect, one way or the other. Flying well seems to trump both.

I could see it making a few points difference one way or another if you were particularly good at precision or at "swoopy", but not to the point where I'm going to go build a plane just for that reason.

I've always thought that the Genesis should have been painted to look like a Barracuda (the fish),

Eh, another Mopar detractor.

Personally, I want a stunt plane that's styled off of the Edsel.

>>Personally, I want a stunt plane that's styled off of the Edsel.<<

Knowing you, Tim, I'm somehow not surprised.

And I want everyone here to know that Randy's planes look perfectly normal to me!

". . . the Chizler is a natural for the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile paint scheme . . . "
Bob Hunt

=================================================

Hot Dog, someone finally said it!