And it's an "even more wrong" explanation than the "lies for children" diagram used in school physics class.
For reference, actual "proper" discussion of lift in textbooks on aerodynamics have tendency to start with a sphere/cylinder.
For reference, actual "proper" discussion of lift in textbooks on aerodynamics have tendency to start with a sphere/cylinder.
EDIT: This is a good starting point for the frankly awesome material from NASA Glenn Research Centre: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/a...
Unfortunately it partly bitrotted due to using java applets for interactive demos, but I think most of it is still reachable - I'll try to find it later when I'm at the desk.
Personally I learnt from a 1980 book that was still part of mandatory reading for glider pilot course in Poland in 2005.
If the diagram shows lift but doesn't show the air being directed downward after leaving the tailing edge of the wing, I basically stop reading. That's the whole thing.
If you take a step back there is a simple way to think about this. In order for the object to stay up there, there needs to be equal and opposite force from some other body. What is that other body? It is the mass of air that is being directed in the opposite direction of the lift force acting on the plane.
This view also implies that most of the lift is happening on the very front edge of the wing which I doubt is accurate otherwise we would have very skinny wings.
It's super frustrating when wrong is very pretty.
But there's quite different flow and drag around it, which was used as opening for for adding rotation (which would add viscosity effects including lift from rotation) and other changed shapes in better way than starting with flat plane.