Please tell me that we are not associating wing loading with tracking? An arrow from a bow tracks well, as long as airspeed is there. Aerodynamics (design) and airspeed make for tracking. Who cares about wing loading when your rudder is 10 square feet in a cross wind and airspeed drops to critical. It has nothing to do with wing loading. Yes, wing loading allows slower flight, but that is almost due to a parachute effect. (Depending on airfoil effiency and wing design) Reynolds numbers figure in based on a "constant" air molecule size. I've seen T.O.C. planes (40% and up) with wing loadings over 30 ounces per foot seem to float nearly motionless. This is where Reynolds numbers apply. A 40 size plane would need a much lower loading to do the same at the same A.O.A. For aerobats I still believe that lighter is better. (For my style of flying anyway.) Because:
#1 Lift brings us up, and gravity pulls us down. (wing loading and design)
#2 A lighter plane turns better. Heavy ones mush. (inertia and wing loading)
#3 Lighter planes make more efficient use of thrust (power to weight)
I would say that for stalling manuvers, that there may be a "too light". Tumbles do need a bit of inertia. Many light fun flys won't Lomcevak. The rotation can't be carried through because the lightness allows the plane to try and fly. I guess the reality is no plane does it all. That's why I keep a fun fly, a scale aerobat, a speed plane, and a heli.

Just my opinion based on reading and listening. I still think Esprit is over priced too.