MFS, thanks for your interesting input. If wing reference area can be so loosely defined, then I would expect that companies like Boeing and Airbus can then boast somewhat erroneously on the capabilities of their wings. For example, using a slat system that gives increased chord, and flaps that extend not only down, but back as well, actually is a new airfoil, with an increased area. To use the original reference area allows the manufacturer to therefore be able to claim their wing is able to attain a higher coefficient of lift than the true wing area would allow. Further, if the reference area may be left the same even when changes to the wing size take place, then adding an extra 10 feet to a wing can really skew the Cl values.
Is my logic invalid?
Re point 2, just to make sure I understand what you've written, is it correct to say then that an aircraft straight and level, with the 2 different configurations I gave in examples 1 and 2, and both at 5 degrees pitch, will therefore be considered to be at the same aoa?
Hawk