I shouldn't have implied that the Reynolds number doesn't mean anything. I just meant that it has no effect on the actual calulation of volume load.

But I do think that a volume load (or something that takes into account the size of the plane) simplifies the information better than area loading PLUS the size of the plane. It's sort of like describing an engine that make so much torque at a certain RPM. You can consoladate that information into a single power figure instead. If you really want all the details of that engine you need to look at it's entire power band, but a quick power figure gives you a good idea.

I am new to airplanes and I found it kind of confusing why wing loading number seemed to get higher the bigger the plane got and now that I understand why that's happening, it just makes sense to me to have a load number that is more like comparing apples to apples even with different size planes. I don't want to have to remember that 10oz/ft^2 is good for a .40 size and 25oz/ft^2 is good for a 50cc size. And I suppose you could even take it to another level and include the Reynolds number in the calc to more accurately predict the planes performance. And for me, at least, I want to use that information to predict it's low speed performance.

Off the top of my head all you would really have to do is just divide the conventional wing load by, say, the wing span, to "normalize" the load value for any size plane, roughly.