As proved by VW Beetles (early). Over their design speed of 65 mph, air rushing underneath much faster than air over hood and roof, ergo lift. Solving this problem exampled by successive Porsche 911 designs.
It is ironic that art-deco auto design of the 1930s "looked" streamlined more than it actually was, and that the Chrysler/DeSoto Airflow had a lower COD going backwards.
I remember my Dad's models using those turbulators on the upper leading edge of the wings he built, long before I saw it on the "real" planes. Black cotton or nylon string, about .050 in diameter, held in place with AC glue. And those little winglets on the ends? Ditto.
I was so confused in class when a teacher docked me for using the term "Aspect Ratio" in an assignment I turned it. Good thing I made no reference to Reynolds Numbers - don't embarrass your teacher!
I'd like to mention, there's much more to aircraft wings than lift. If you dissect a typical, modern jet airliner, you can see that a bunch of intense measures are combined to essentially force the aircraft into the air and suspend it there. In many ways, it isn't doing what birds do at all. And that's why we should all be nervous, getting on these modern versions, IMO.
As a recovering engineer, but still one at heart that has a white board on his kitchen wall and 3 kids who roll their eyes when he gets up to explain something, I momentarily forgot that this was a forum about telecasters . . .