The most readable, logical, intuitive and understandable article I have read on lift is
How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift. The credentials of
Scott Eberhardt, one of the co-authors, suggest that the concepts it presents should be reasonably accurate.
As its name makes clear, "A Physical Description of Lift" presents a Newtonian explanation for lift. "
See How It Flies" on the other hand presents a pressure based explanation. These two approaches may not be incompatible. According to the Wikipedia
article and
discussion on lift they may be two methods of describing the same thing. This is also addressed on this
NASA page.
There is one major disagreement. "A Physical Description of Lift" claims that the Coanda effect has a significant role in producing lift. "See How It Flies" goes to considerable lengths (some of them a little dubious) to claim that the Coanda effect is not involved in producing lift. One of these claims is wrong.
Another article that supports Coanda is
How Planes Don't Fly: Debunking a standard explanation of lift.
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.
After contact with the inclined wing, the airstream has changed direction. Therefore, acceleration has occurred:
http://www.answers.com/acceleration#ScienceThe most familiar kind of acceleration is a change in the speed of an object. An object that stays at the same speed but changes direction, however, is also being accelerated.
Personally, I propose we take an initiative from intelligent design proponents and declare that lift is too complex and therefore a supernatural being
must be responsible.
