Nick,

If I'm understanding your test right, there's no need to plug anything into Bernoulli. Measure the pressure on the wing surface with a gridwork of surface pressure taps, multiply each pressure measurement times the incremental area that it acted on and total it up. Is this what you did? Even that won't give you the total lift of the airplane. The fuselage, horizontal stabilizer and propeller all contribute to total lift. As an aside, in addition to the inclined axial flow of the propeller contributing to lift, there is an additional lift component called the normal or radial lift. Curtis-Wright developed a wingless V/STOL aircraft around 1960 using the radial lift effect, so it's possible to get a lot of lift from this effect. NACA had a report on in back in the '40s.

The thing that gets me about Coanda from an intuitive level is the whole F=ma thing. That the wing throwing air downward somehow makes the wing lift. To me, this doesn't make sense on two levels. First, with F=ma, you have to have acceleration in order to generate a force. The highest accelerations in the flow are at the leading edge upwards. The lowest accelerations are at the trailing edge; nearly zero since the flow is almost straight and decelerating back to freestream velocity. (Does a decelerating flow result in negative lift?) Using a Coanda-based lift theory, this would result in large downward accelerations on the LE and small upwards accelerations on the TE. I don't know how that adds up to be lift, but an additional side-effect is that there now appears to be a downward pitching moment on the wing. Wing pitch moment curves have an upwards pitch with upwards lift, so thare's that discrepancy.

The second problem I have with a Coanda/F=ma argument is that there doesn't seem to be any connection between all this downward-pushed air and the wing. F=ma works beautifully for particles. If you sit in a wagon and throw a brick backwards, you go forward. Now imagine sitting on a swing resting just above the wagon. Throw the brick. You move, but does the wagon? No. So how does all that F=ma-ed air around the wing act on it and generate lift?

As for my statements on Bernoulli, I did say that it is not valid within a boundary layer or separated flow, so I don't understand the complaint. Strictly speaking, the Bernoulli equation isn't valid anywhere because none of those four conditions exist in the real world. However, if viscosity, compressibility and steadiness effects are small, then it's usable. Basically what this means is that the Bernoulli equation is not valid on the surface of the wing. However, on a streamline beyond the boundary layer or separated flow region, it's valid enough.

Edit: I appreciate the thread, too. Gives me a chance to rant about Raskin.