This study investigates the influence of mesh resolution and turbulence model selection on the accuracy of numerical simulations for transonic flow, with particular emphasis on shock-boundary layer interaction phenomena. Accurate prediction of such flows is notoriously difficult due to the sensitivity to near-wall resolution, global mesh density, and turbulence model assumptions, and this problem motivates the present work. Two solvers were employed, rhoCentralFoam (unsteady) and TSLAeroFoam (steady-state), both are compressible and density-based and implemented within the OpenFOAM framework. The investigation focuses on three different non-dimensional wall distance ( $y^{+}$) values of 1, 2.5 and 5, each implemented with both moderate and fine mesh resolutions. Three turbulence models—Spalart-Allmaras (SA), $k$- $\omega$ Shear Stress Transport (SST), and $k$- $ϵ$ Realizable—were evaluated at M = 0.74, Re = 2.7 $\times$ ${\mathrm{10}}^6$, and $\alpha$ = ${\mathrm{3.19}}^{\circ }$. Results showed that while both solvers achieved good overall agreement with experimental data, particularly in terms of pressure distribution, lift coefficient, and shock location, noticeable differences still emerged. The $k$- $\omega$ SST model consistently delivered the most robust performance across all cases, capturing the shock position on $y^{+}\approx 1$ meshes with deviations below 0.02 $c$ compared to the experiment, and maintaining accuracy even at $y^{+}\approx 5$. The $k$- $ϵ$ Realizable model was highly sensitive to near-wall resolution, displacing shocks downstream at higher $y^{+}$ values, whereas Spalart-Allmaras remained broadly comparable to the $k$- $\omega$ SST model in predictive performance. The rhoCentralFoam solver achieved consistently better lift predictions, staying within about 2% of the experimental value on average, whereas TSLAeroFoam overpredicted it by around 4%. For transonic Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations, unsteady $k$- $\omega$ SST with $y^{+}\approx 1$ is recommended for maximum fidelity, whereas steady $k$- $\omega$ SST or SA simulations offer a practical option for quick and reasonably accurate aerodynamic predictions.