Those papers were likely not written by people familiar with the subject or were written for a very specific geometry, as there has never been an effective way to predict the onset of turbulence. There are various empirical methods that apply only to specific geometries in specific flow regimes and conditions i.e. it will be different if it is traveling Mach 0.3 than Mach 0.8, which will be different than at Mach 2, which will be different than at Mach 5 and results in flight will be different than in a wind tunnel.Aero51 said:Sorry for the late response, it was a busy weekend. Anyway, when I was speaking about the Reynolds number ranges I was coming from a historical perspective. Many papers cite those ranges typical to the aircraft mentioned above.
I can tell you I know almost precisely zero about turbulence modeling. Personally, I am not a fan of it, though it certainly has its uses. I do, however, enjoy quite a bit the stability and transition problem (which is more relevant to the Reynolds number range discussion at present). For that, by far the most comprehensive paper is by L. M. Mack (1984) covering the linear stability theory of boundary layers. That ignores crossflow and centrifugal (Görtler) instabilities though. For those, the most comprehensive view of the work that has been done would likely be two Annual Review papers by Saric (2003 and 1994 respectively). They aren't easy reads unless you are already somewhat familiar with viscous flows, but they are effectively the books of the Bible on the subject.Aero51 said:I cant say I know much about Görtler vortices or a lot of details about turbulence/turbulence modeling as I have not taken any classes on the material yet. However, in lieu of these facts I will proceed to read some more papers on the subject.
If you truly are interested in the subject though, then here are the three sources I mentioned.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA147243 (Mack 1984, ch. 3 is on linear stability theory, long read)
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.fluid.35.101101.161045 (Saric 2003)
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.fl.26.010194.002115 (Saric 1994)