> The second page of the article seems to address this and calls it an incorrect lift theory. If it does, it's wrong. Edit: Now that I have read it, I would ha

> The second page of the article seems to address this and calls it an incorrect lift theory. If it does, it's wrong. Edit: Now that I have read it, I would have to disagree with you. The article only references the Bernoulli pressure arguments, it does not mention Newton's third law or airflow circulation. > The real details of how an object generates lift are very complex and do not lend themselves to simplification. There is no scientific contention about flight. Nobody is currently publishing papers on this topic ("journal of fluid mechanics" if you are interested), it was well understood in the previous century. Newton's third law explains at a high level how object fly. Yes you can dig into the details of fluid motion, turbulent flow, boundary layers etc, but this does not detract from the high-level picture.