DAR
I was entirely with you on this one, but I think I get what the others are talking about.
If you climb 1000ft in a turn, both wings have climbed 1000ft, but the outer has flown further to do it.
This gives a different angle of incidence on each wing, as shown in background noise's diagram.
"In the most extreme, were the turn to be so tight that its pivot point was the inner wings wing tip, that wing tip would have zero relative airflow, and therefore an apparently infinate AoA."
No, because the aircraft is
climbing.
This situation is exactly the reality of a helicopter in a hover. The air is flowing vertically downward through the disc. The airflow at the rotor head centre is actually giving reverse or negative AoA rather than infinite AoA.
At the exact centre of the disc, the airflow is from vertically above, ie -90 minus blade angle and stalled.
As you move outward along the blade, the blade's motion produces a tilt in the relative airflow from vertically above the blade steadily more towards coming from the direction of travel, and at some point you will find the blade unstalls and produces
downward lift.
At some point further along the blade, the AoA reaches 0degrees or directly down the chord line.
As you move yet further along the blade, the AoA finally becomes positive, ie from below the chord line, and produces upward lift. This is produced in greater and greater quantities as you move along the blade to the tip.
If the blade/wing was infinitely long, then the max AoA at the tip would approach the
blade angle.
The AoA at the centre of the rotor/or tip of inner wing in your example is 90degrees minus the blade angle/or aircraft nose up plus wing mounting angle.
That is, as you say an extreme example compared to fixed wing aircraft in a turn, but it makes the point.
This
would give a greater angle of attack on the outer wing
if we didn't effectively alter the shape of the wings with ailerons to balance the Lift to maintain a steady state.
Edit:
I'm slightly traumatised to find that I have been persuaded to the other view just as JF has waded in agreeing with my earlier view!