There is a well-worn expression - "If it looks right it is right" - and that is often true.
The Hunter, for example, looked right and was more than that.
There is an apocryphal tale of a Rhodesian RAF officer who visited Warton and was shown a prototype Tornado in a hangar with a very asymetric configuration and he commented "It'll never fu**ing fly".
An Israeli air force officer commented "The best place for canards is on someone else's fighter".
In Cold Lake circa Maple Flag 5 the Base Commander wanted to hold an ugly aircraft competition and picked on the Harrier. The A-10 won.
Does looking the part mean much or is the visual impact merely in the eyes of the beholder?
The Ford Capri was a beautiful car but it was far from the best of its' era.
The Lightning looked and was a formidable performing fighter in its' day but the weapon system was crap even by the standards of the day.
Some Navigators look smart but I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.
I guess looks mean something but they are not the be all and end all. Scratch the surface at least to see the value.