Roughly 80% of the lift is generated above the wing in typical aircraft. Angle of attack is part of it and not a counterargument.
As the angle of attack is increases, the point of minimum pressure moves forward and the size of the adverse pressure gradient increases.
btw. In most most airfoils zero angle of attack and zero lift axis differ. The wing generates lift even without the angle of attack. Chambered wings are exception to this.
That's a weird text. At the beginning the author lists reasons why it's clearly Newton's third law, and then just basically says: "But then an 'authority' on aerodynamics waved hands around telling me it's not. The end." Maybe I misread something, but nowhere in the examples that are apparently inconsistent with Bernoulli's law, and for which the professor claims they actually support it, does he actually provide an explanation.
Sure. A follow-up question I would have asked: how do propellers work? By accelerating large volumes of air, force is generated according to Newton's Second Law. So do wings accelerate large volumes of air? Of course, as one can see at any airport, large vortices trail behind and below the wings of any airplane or glider. So how is a wing different than a propeller?
I didn't say it wasn't complicated. What I said was most lift is due to angle of attack.
The fact is that the percentage of lift that is attributable to angle of attack is far greater than that due to reduction in air pressure across the curved part of the wing.
