I think that most people would agree that matching Reynolds number is important for validating CFD codes, particularly when there is such a large range along the blade of a typical turbine. My suggestion is to try to get access to data that covers the range that you are interested in for validation. There have been full scale tests on smaller turbines such as the NREL NASA Ames Experiment
or the upcoming European MEXICO test. There are also higher Reynolds number tests of turbines done at Riso and NREL, but the data is much more sparse - typically integrated loads and power. Often, these data are shared through IEA working groups that many different countries are involved in, although I'm not sure that China is active yet.
Of course the first step of validating most codes is done by looking at much more simple geometries (but complex flowfields), like cylinders, airfoils, etc... where the data are much more detailed and widely available.