I agree with both HoHun and Funked.
My point in my talks with Karnak is that wingloading is a
general indicator of sustained turning ability, but I agree its not an absolute.
What we were trying to do, is without a large cache of flight test data and spending a large amount of time doing calculations, how could we do a "quick and dirty" test on the Mosquito to see if its turning ability falls into the general range we would expect it too. (Remember we were at the CON, and I was drunk and didn't figure on spending hours doing flight testing

Plus none of us had our aviation libraries)
My idea was to look at wingloading for several aircraft and the Mosquito, do some quick and dirty 360 degree turn time tests (maybe 5 times averaged) for each and then see if the results were generally believeable.
We weren't trying to absolutely validate the FM

My reasoning that "empty weight" is more appropriate than "fully loaded weight" is that fully loaded weight (ie 100% fuel) artifically penalizes the aircraft designed for long range flight.
You can take two planes that are the same general size, weight, and ability empty, but your tests will artifically show the long range aircraft inferior.
If you want to take this "theory" of comparison to AH, I think it would be best to calculate the %25 fuel load weight and go from there.
True this is not without its own problems, but since fuel loads are so variable in the arena, this would be the most representative for the kind of tests we were discussing.
Karnak, I haven't had time to look at your numbers yet, I've been really busy since I got home from Dallas.