Barry,
While you are pondering my above questions, I decided to just give my idea of my Question #2 a try.
I really wanted to just take layering out of the equation and then see if I could obtain a more meaningfull Mesh Independence Study.
Unfortunately here are the results:
I decided to present my plots with y-scaled as a percentage of the value of the largest volume mesh (as we expect the largest volume mesh to be the best prediction of results).
Without adding the 40m mesh to the study, I may have been content to use the 10m mesh for further study. After all my Cl was virtually the same for 10m and 23m, and my Cd was only different by ~12% from 10m to 23m.
But, I just wanted to see a further 40m mesh, stupid me 
.
Now I have Cl at 23m is only 83.6% of 40m while Cd is starting to behave, showing only 102.5% of 40m.
I just keep getting more confused 
I was not 100% satisfied with my meshing.
The trailing edges of my wings and fuselage are a little jagged due to Snappy’s inability to maintain clean geometry edges in the mesh that it generates, even at 40m volumes)
Here are jaggies on GNL3 40m mesh at trailing edge of my ‘vertical fin’ (so to say):
I could have made them less jaggy with another level of surface refinement but I chose not to because after I select which mesh to carry on with (from what this study suggests), I was then going to layer the selected mesh. However, to get good layer results I would have to reduce surface refinement back to the level I have done this study on. I figured that it would be best to leave as much of the mesh alone (other than layering addition) after I selected a mesh from this study as possible.
Anyway I don’t really think the little jaggies are the problem here (I could be wrong).
@Get_Barried, I am sending you another invite to the current state of the project if you want to see for yourself. The GNL meshes are the last 4 meshes and the sims are the last 4 sims.
@1318980 I think you are currently shared on this one, I assume you can just copy/view the latest state at any time.
Project is getting rather large now as I leave my ‘learning curve’ meshes and sims in it.
Dale
EDIT; Since I did this study I have come to realize that I should not look at Cm as a variable that should be evaluated as a percentage of the previous iteration for MIS study use. The reason is that we can re-map the Cm to any value, including 0, simply by moving the Reference Center if Rotation point that determines the Cm moment arm for any simulation run. So, please ignore the Cm plots…