Barry,
Thanks for the very detailed response, I guess I started ‘overthinking’ about what I was trying to accomplish with the study 
But, in thinking about your reply 
. I have these questions now:
- Lets say I did a study that did not seem to settle out, even if it did +/- 1% settle out, (say of meshes with volumes 1m, 2m, 4m, 8m, 16m, 32m, 64m ), but 8m,12m,16m,32m stay within +/- 5% of a median, and you choose to use 8m because of its ‘small’ size. Then, you come up with some experimental results that match 8m results exactly (well, very close). I guess I would have to just consider myself lucky
and make sure that whoever I am talking to about this magic coincidence of apparently precise CFD results validity, also understood that it was a lucky coincidence of the match and that generally CFD is currently capable of only predicting results within a +/- 5 percent range AND only if you really know what you are doing in your CFD setup. Is that a good generalization? - What do you think of my concept of perhaps doing the study with unlayered meshes to choose the ‘best’ one for your purposes. After that selection is made, do your layering on it and use that one for further analysis at different airspeeds and angle of attacks (constantly making sure each results generated has still a good yPlus range of 30-300 in my case) with the basic understanding that your results may be valid +/- 5%?
I am sure I will be ‘thinking’ of your reply much more and have further questions but that is a start
Thanks,
Dale
P.S. Sorry about my perpetual use of bracketing in my prose. I guess I just get rambling and come to a fork in my thoughts. Each bracket represents a side fork or branch sprouting from a trunk. I even use brackets inside brackets inside brackets… sometimes 
. This style leads to much re-reading but does have some logic in it, If my sentences were trees and my brackets were branches then I guess I am a spruce tree, perhaps I should try to be a redwood