Back on topic, as stated above, wing loading is measuring how much weight each part of the wing is supporting, and therefore how much lift each bit of wing has to create to maintain level flight. Increase the weight (wingloading), and you have to get more lift from the same wing, which means flying faster or at a higher AOA. (since you increase wing lift by increasing airspeed or AOA or both. Increasing AOA also increases drag and at some point you increase AOA past the critical angle, and the wing stalls, and lift drops off).

One thing to keep in mind, wingloading is often misleading. It's really only useful for comparison between two simular size and type of airplane. What is a "high" wingloading number in a .40 size plane is "feather light" in a 50cc gaser, for example. And if you lookup or calculate the wingloading on a full scale Cessna, you'd think it wouldn't get off the ground (compared to model numbers).

As a way around this, some people calculate the "cubic loading", which is roughly a way of calculating the weight of the plane divided by the volume of the wing rather than the area. Of course, figuring out the volume of an airfoil shaped wing is a pain, so there are a couple of short-hand versions that usually involve squaring the wingspan. You get the idea. Anyway, cubic loading does seem to track performance better across airplane sizes, but has never caught on.

Generally, lighter wingloading is going to result in a better flying plane. Yes, a heavier plane will often seem to "track" better on final, but when it comes to pretty much anything else you'll do with a model, lighter wingloading is better. Just take your favorate model and start adding weight to the CG to see for yourself