I was flipping through my Utah pictures, and noticed something.

Sometimes we get that question about how will "blank" plane do in the backcountry/mountains. The response is usually, "well what's the mission/how much do you want to carry?"

Well, here we have 150hp C172 (me) and a turbo C206 (flynbeekeeper). First picture is the 206 catching up to me over the Utah/Colorado border. Second is us landed at Fry Canyon. Third is at Gateway, CO (the 206 is partly cutoff but the tail is there).

Now these strips aren't particularly difficult, but the point is how the two planes were loaded. The 172 had one pilot, a little camping gear, and a cooler that was a little bulky to stick in the 206. The 206 had 5 people, gear for those people, food for those people and me (hence why I took the cooler to free up some room).

The "How much do you want to carry?" question can have a big impact on what plane to go with.

Anyway, I just thought it was cool to see two airplanes going to the same place, yet fulfilling very different missions.

Also, there's a pretty massive difference in pilot skill/experience between the two pilots in this scenario, but lets just ignore that for now.

Great synopsis! I've always been a great advocate of the versatility of the 172. Had mine for over 32 years and it has done most everything I have asked of it.

I think you spotted the elephant in the room.

A 172 will land in about 800 feet and take back off in about 900. The 206 landing and takeoff numbers are almost identical. And a 208 only needs a couple hundred feet more to do the same. Oh and my tripacer has a 600/900 landing/takeoff number as well. Looks like a trend here...

Unless you fly a custom built bush plane like Draco or a modded Supercub all the other planes will be within a couple of hundred feet of those numbers. So the reality of which plane is best for the backcountry is really what plane you got. I fly a Tripacer because I was able to find one with everything I wanted for 1/4 the price of any of the other trainers on the market. Your answer will be different. The reality is that the tradeoffs between the different makes of planes is much less than the tradeoffs between one deal and another when you are buying.

In the real word you would be much more likely to face a decision between a 172 with 10 more hp or a Tripacer that comes with a handheld GPS, full set of covers, and tw3 headsets for the same money. Or your choice is between a 180 or a Maule that is 15 years newer but has 500 more hours on the engine.

The best plane for backcountry missions will always be the one you can get your hands on an fly a lot.

There are a couple guys flying 172's here in AK that do amazing STOL work with them.

Yours has a Horton STOL and VG's? Hard to beat combo there. If you really wanted more gitty up for getting off the ground look at the prop.

I'd just pour fuel in it and fly the heck out of it. They're good airplanes.

akaviator wrote:

Yours has a Horton STOL and VG's? Hard to beat combo there.

Yep. I really like the way it flys.

You know its funny, I originally figured the 172 to be a good mountain/backcountry trainer. It would teach me to use my head. Down the road, I would upgrade. However, its done well enough that I may not upgrade for a bit. I don't really take anyone else with me, so it fits my needs for now. I still have plenty to learn anyway.

THAT SAID, if a the perfect deal on a 182B came along, I could easily be persuaded to upgrade sooner.

SA,
That trip was a blast! Thanks for posting the photos.
You have the airplane and the skills to make it happen. Fly the piss out of that 172 and have fun!
Tom