At any load from empty to MTOW, there is far less difference in density between a Cessna and a 747 than there is between an Eagle and a Cutter.
A 747 doubles in density between empty and full load. An Eagle is forty to fifty times the density of a Cutter.
The actual volumes of ED ships again (mass is easy to estimate, or to calculate on a ship builder):
https://i.redd.it/8lphpq3lsfpx.png
I never said anything that implied higher wing loading didn't imply a tendency to resist turbulence. I also never implied that a Cessna wouldn't be much more susceptible to turbulence than a 747.
What I did point out was that wing loading cannot be derived from mass alone (you need mass and area) and that when you look at the actual masses and areas involved, an Eagle would have slightly
higher effective wing loading than a Cutter.
The Cessna/747 comparison is not at all analogous to the Eagle/Cutter comparison, because Elite does not scale ships the way one would expect. Ships get bigger, but very little mass actually gets added to them. A few thousand tons is nothing in the face of more than a hundred thousand cubic meters of volume or tens of thousands of square meters of surface area.
Some of the more outlandish examples of large ships, namely the Beluga and Anaconda, can have densities on the order of 5kg per cubic meter. This is only four times the density of air at sea level on earth. A planet with lower gravity or a thicker atmosphere could easily turn one of these ships into a dirigible. These ships are going to be subject to extreme aerodynamic forces, despite their absolute masses.