I do think we are answering different questions to some extent.
The question was "how do I calculate MAX wingloading". Not "how do I calculate THE wingloading".
LouW pretty much answered the 2nd question, "how do you calculate the wingloading". Lou then said you can compare that to simular size airplanes for a ball park idea of performace.
I don't disagree with that at all.
But that doesn't tell you what the "MAX" wingloading of the plane is.
But most of my response wasn't aimed at Lou, it was aimed at the guys who tried to give a fixed number with no clarification, which is flat wrong. Or who implied that if all you knew was the wingloading, but not the wingspan or other metrics, that you could determine the flight performace. Your first post really implied that strongly when you said:
There are a lot of factors.
Nope just two. Weight and wing area. By mathematical convention an aircraft's 'weight' divided by its wing area is what "wing loading" is by definition.
In the context you said that, you implied that the size of the airplane was not a factor when talking about a planes MAX wingloading. Not it's wingloading, it's MAX wingloading. Your most recent point acknowledges this, and I'm sure you knew it, but it wasn't what you said.
Now, defining "MAX" wingloading, I took to mean "highest wingloading for a plane that will still fly in a reasonale manner". It's subjective of course. I am using this definition because of the way the origional question was asked. I'm guessing a bit, but it sounds like the origional question was asked because they wanted to know if a particular plane they were working on was "too heavy" or not, and wanted a way to figure that out. I also think it's possible the origional question was also asking about possible payload capacity of a given plane.
So the question is, how high can the wingloading be, and have the plane still fly "well". I think you can get a general idea of what "well" is and isn't. You'd want to be able to ROG from a typical model field, fly some basic acrobatics such as a loop or roll, and be able to land on a typical model field at a reasonable landing speed, all with out undo risk of snapping out and spinning to the ground.
And my answer is that it's hard to determine. You could probibly calculate it out, but it would be a pain.
And my main point is that the overall design of the plan is a big factor still stands. I've had plenty of person experience with my own designs to back this up. Just changing the tip chord of a wing with out changing the over all area or the wingloading can make a big difference. In my case, adding an inch to the tip chord and taking the inch back at the root made the difference between a plane that was a snapping nightmare and a very nice flyer. Same airfoil. Same wingloading. Very different performace.
Anyway, that most recent post did actually say what I've been saying all along when you said:
Of course, altering the scale, form (drag) or wing shape dramatically will have an influence upon both handling and performance. Of course understood as a given, wing loading is part of the whole (design).
However, I felt it was worthwhile, in a beginners forum, to not take anything as a "given", and not assume the readers would automatically know that design elements such as scale, wing shape, etc would have a signifigante effect to the answer. So I tried to point that out. Nice to see that we do, in fact, agree in the end.
Btw, if you want to mention false logic, how many hours you do or don't have in a full scale cockpit says nothing about your ability to design anything. Your comments about your piloting experience, while intersting, is a totally bogus addition to a discussion about wingloading. I'd have to dig up a logic book, but I believe that's usually referred to as "False Authority". And veiled attacks on me personally don't help you much either.