According to Bernoulli's principle and for a given angle of attack would that not lower the lift force of the airplane and increase its drag and therefore increasing its demand in thrust and fuel consumption?
This is anti-economic and puts the airplane under unnecessary mechanical stress.
I am not referring to the angle of attack adjusted by the pilot during flight or to any preinstalled by the manufacturer angle of incidence on the wings to support lift but solely to the shape of the wings. For example aerobatic airplanes (i.e. stunt planes) and most modern fighter jets, they don't rely at all on wing shape for lift. Their wings are evenly shaped flat upside and downside (i.e. instead of being usually in other airplanes, curved upside and flat downside).
Therefore, their flat evenly shaped wings do not support additionally to the angle of attack and incidence angle the lift of the plane.
Why not this additional feature of upside curved wing shape is not present in this kind of airplanes? Is there any particular reason(s)?
What is the trade-off here? A curved wing creates lower resistance on the upside and therefore faster air speed and lower air pressure (Bernoulli's principle) upside. Thus, increases lift in addition to the main lift generated by the angle of attack and incidence angle.
It would be logical to make use of this feature in fighter jets and aerobatic airplanes to generate larger lift with less thrust and less fuel consumption.