I wish I could agree, but there are a few howlers in there. The significance of compressibility at low speeds around typical airfoils (M < .3 and no slots or blown flaps) is truly negligible, and the flowfield can be very finely approximated with uncorrected potential flow methods.
Also, the author mentions "suction," which is incredibly problematic. Just as you cannot push string, you cannot suck air. We can talk of negative "gauge" pressure, but that's just complicating things. There is a region of low pressure above the wing, but the wing isn't being "sucked" into that; It's being pushed into that by the higher pressure on the lower side.
This "force" formulation is equivalent to the "mass x acceleration" formulation we get when we keep track of the mass of air moving about the wing. (Newton might remind us that F=m x a. Newton; So cheeky!)
He does finally get around to the Kutta-Jukowsky theorem, but it seems buried under a bunch of other stuff.
Yes, and he defines it immediately: "suction, i.e. negative pressure relative to ambient" which is exactly the same as 'negative gauge pressure'. So why is this problematic?
> the wing isn't being "sucked" into that
And he never says it is. You're attacking a straw man.
Also, the author mentions "suction," which is incredibly problematic. Just as you cannot push string, you cannot suck air. We can talk of negative "gauge" pressure, but that's just complicating things. There is a region of low pressure above the wing, but the wing isn't being "sucked" into that; It's being pushed into that by the higher pressure on the lower side.
This "force" formulation is equivalent to the "mass x acceleration" formulation we get when we keep track of the mass of air moving about the wing. (Newton might remind us that F=m x a. Newton; So cheeky!)
He does finally get around to the Kutta-Jukowsky theorem, but it seems buried under a bunch of other stuff.
Oh, well. To each his own.