Just to make a quick point...regarding Rn Mn
we simply use Rn as a rough guide depending on what types of forces are dominant-to predict flow separation point and when laminar becomes turbulent---in reality it's not so simple as there are usually mixed flows...plus the interaction with shockwaves etc
At slow speeds and low altitudes and 'conservative' airfoils rather simplistic treaments can be used...as one goes higher and faster it gets progressively harder; but they try to get it as good as possible on paper---and these complex treatments are for designers-not pilots; the wind tunnel provides a better picture and is still cheaper than lots of full scale models provided you do your tests at representative Rn and Mn [or EAS] ---but the aforementioned limitations---described by
mike-wsm and Volume---also prevent a full appreciation of the flight characteristics---only through flight testing can we be sure---but even at the most esoteric level---Newton still rules---i.e wing pushes air down---air pushes wing up---that never changes---the mathematical mess is for designers---
John Farley's word once again ring true...
Brian Abraham's synopsis of the various formulations is very interesting just hope this post puts it into some more perspective...also there are many different treatments with different limiting conditions different acuracies/precision depending on exactly what you're doing...Von Karman corrected most of Prandtl's formulations...he was probably the most exacting one...
roulishollandais
your assesment is correct 'pilots are not supposed to be too smart'..
and don't worry about your typing I'm a native English/Spanish speaker and I can guarantee that at times mine is much worse...
Il y'a etait depuis tres longue temps lorsque j'ai parlait Francais aussi ---J'ai oublie comment tout de mon Francais...I think I said that right...sorry for the missing accent marks too lazy...
I forgot most of my Italian too...