Tourist...
I will freely admit that my misuse of terms has not been helpful, however that does not make my points invalid.
You agree you've used incorrect terms and yet you still argue that your points are valid?
The problem here is not a 'language' problem. If you were to talk English to a Russian-only speaking person, you would not be able to communicate because you have a completely different word to describe the same thing as the Russian. That's not the problem here. You are using terms which you, I and most people on this forum have the same, roughly speaking, definition for. As I pointed out before, many pilots are taught that it's ONLY about angle of attack and speed to make lift and so from that it's easy to see that you need to change angle of attack to change lift at the same speed. But that's not true. Saying it's all about AoA and speed only works if you're going to analyse a few, very specific, flight conditions where you could accurately describe changes in lift with AoA or speed. However, when you try to describe a complicated flight profile, such as a climbing turn around the stall speed regime, you can't accurately describe what's happening with just AoA and speed. But people do just that. They know what the outcome is, ie: the wing stays at a particular bank while in a turn, so since the outside wing is traveling faster, it MUST be at a lower AoA.... problem solved! <---- That is exactly how misinformation gets passed along.
I would never tell a student something that I know to be wrong. I have no respect for the attitude of, "I know this isn't totally correct but it makes sense and the correct way is far too complicated, so I'm going to teach it incorrectly".
Here is a perfect example of misinformation that gets passed on, in this case due to ignorance and not willfully. I've been told many times by people that they just did a barrel roll. Everytime I ask them to describe what they did and everytime they describe an aileron roll. I thought for the longest time too that an aileron roll was a barrel roll - I think we have the entertainment industry to blame for this one!
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/48589...rel-rolls.html
If an engineer came across a solid wing, (ie no hinge or aileron) in the shape of "our wing" but with the aileron deflected downwards and was asked to work out the chord line he would come up with a different result than if he was given a wing in the shape of "our wing" with the aileron level.
You're trying to 'bend' the way that airfoils are normally designed so as to fit your description. I would say 'yes' to what you said, but that's not the way that airfoils are designed! How does this prove your point? I don't think you understand why it's incorrect to describe the condition we're discussing in this thread the way you have.
Equally, if you have wing warping, to say that the chord line is unchanging is no more valid than to say that the Cl is unchanging.
You can't say that since the chord line is changing (or unchanging as you used) the Cl is changing. They are two completely separate things. A change in the chord line does not mean that there is a change in the angle of attack or a change in the Cl, or anything else. If 'Cl' was the same as 'chord line', it would be spelt this way: chord line.
I completely agree with you that this is all 'semantics'... but, ironically, I don't think you have the same interpretation of semantics as I do! The definition of semantics:
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc. If you think that you don't need to have the same interpretation of the meaning of the words being used to discuss aerodynamics, then I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here!