I'm also disrespecting those that say..."it's very complicated" as an excuse for not challenging simple things...
I on the other hand tend to be wary of people offering simple answers to complex problems - in my experience, that almost never works out, be it in politics, science or engineering.
I'm looking at simple things in the flight model... a force being generated, it's distance from the rotation point and thus the moment it should exert.
Except of course you're already falling for the cartoon here, because in reality no single "force arrow" gets generated at some distance, there's a whole force field generated across every surface point.
You're already making multiple assumptions to come to this idealized picture - which you are by and large completely unaware of.
If we think about the fuselage it's below the centre of rotation so any side force pushing left will rotate the plane to the right
It's almost like you wrote this to illustrate my point above
I frankly don't believe that the z-coordinate of the CoG of the plane is located right at the top of the fuselage. To the degree that it's not and it will rotate around a lower point, you can push it from the side above or below that coordinate - of even above and below, and dependent on how the strength of the pushing arranges, you can have any sign of the rolling moment and any net side force.
It's a question of how the details of the airstream perturbed by the wing etc. work out on the fuselage.
what remains now is the wind shadowing by the fuselage on the inner left wing.. So what do we know...
In a world in which air basically works like ray optics in light, elements cast a sharp shadow and nearby sections of the wing don't influence each other the argument is sound - the question is - how realistic is that world?
Note for instance that this is a subsonic plane, so perturbations can propagate upstream - the forward parts of the plane do know that something else is coming behind for that reason. If you like, in air you can cast your shadows forward and backward.
Essentially you're arguing:
1) Assume my model of independent airfoils, wing sections and ray optics aerodynamics is true
2) My model doesn't give me the results of your model
3) Therefore your model must have a problem
But unfortunately the argument collapses at 1) - what if your picture isn't true? There's just the rub - there's no evidence that things really work out how you reason because to be able to apply the reasoning you need to drastically simplify aerodynamics. So maybe it's your model which has the problem.
I don't know how good it is for the Piper (I do know it'd suck for the Shuttle) - but neither do you. Yet we get plenty of definite 'this can't be' or 'this is wrong' from you - while we've seen since the beginning of this discussion two cases of real data which your reasoning completely failed to explain (prompting you to the somewhat funny reply that the data can't be true).