Forgive the ignorance that is probably prevalent in this thread. I am a newbie in general. I am currently taking lessons and working on my Private, so I have not done any backcountry flying at all. It is part of my future interest. Anyway, I see that there are a few people out there doing off airport landings in Tricycle geared planes. I have seen some flying C205, 206, etc. My question is this: would you steer clear of using a retractable gear plane for off airport landings? Something like the C210? Is there anything about the build of a retractable that makes it less durable, or less able to handle the rough terrain, etc.? Or has it just been a preference to stay away from the added complexity..less things to go wrong. Just curious as 210s seem to be a bit easier to find than 205, 206..

I can't speak to the durability of the retraction mechanisms, but when I was flying a Cutlass (C-172RG), the tires were quite a bit smaller so they could fit into the gear bays. The would probably disqualify one from most off-pavement operations.

As Chris said, the tires are smaller. On the early 210s 5.00x5 is the biggest, and some later ones will fit 15.00x6 I think, maybe even 6.00x6. The nose gear linkage is the weakest point IMO, and i would only consider operating off of very smooth grass strips. So it really depends what you definition of backcountry flying is.

Tires, complexity, weight, slickness, speed.

I've taken my Bonanza anywhere I ever took my 182. The gear is much more durable than the 182. I have more ground clearance than a 182 with a 6.00 on the nose. The 182 will get off the ground with about 10% less runway but then gets destroyed by the Bo. Used to have a 67 182 and now have a 58 182 along with my S35. The early 182's are painfully slow and can't carry anything. But it's a fun aircraft to thrash around locally in the mountains.

I think it's generally that both tire size and sturdiness plays a part. But then there's PiperPainter, who used to regularly participate here, who until he switched to a Cessna 205, regularly flew into places most of us considered pretty dicey in his Mooney C model, which is one with manually retractable gear, using a Johnson bar instead of an electric motor to operate the gear. He proved, IMHO, that it's not so much the airplane but the skill of the pilot that dictates where an airplane can land.

The last time I was at a fly-in at Marble, CO, there were three retracts there, a Piper Saratoga, a Cessna T210, and a Cessna P210. One of the times I was at La Garita Ranch, CO, there was a Bonanza there. Both are fairly smooth gravel strips. Some retracts have a reputation for having hell for stout gear, which includes both the manual gear Mooneys and the Bonanza, but they still have a tire size limitation. I owned in partnership a Cessna TR182 and a T210, and frankly I never felt comfortable enough with the solidarity of their gear to take them into any unpaved strips. My pard took both into a couple of ranch strips, but I always thought he was taking chances, as their tire sizes are pretty small compared to most stock fixed gear Cessnas, and their gear operation is pretty complex and (to me) fragile.

Cary

There’s a dude here (south east lower 48)that was trying to pawn off a ragged out older model C210, looks like a 206 with RG. Anyways, he would tell the looky loos that this (C210)airplane type is sought after by bush pilots in Alaska. I about lost it when my buddy’s told me that.

If I were ever to consider buying a retract plane for the backcountry I would put the 33/35 model Bonanzas at the top of the list. As Bonanza man stated - The gear is hardcore strong and the prop clearance is amazing. There is a guy who flies his V35 to the Skywagon fly-ins who sold his C185 and says he gets into all of the same places he did with his C185. I would assume he is not talking places like lower loon but for most of the reasonable strips in the Frank Church he does fine. If you are looking for mostly a X country plane with speed and efficiency that can go into some of the tamer backcountry spots a Bonanza is a great choice.

Personally, I don't see a problem with retractable gear and backcountry operations;-)

albravo wrote:Personally, I don't see a problem with retractable gear and backcountry operations;-)

Consider this a "Like" button. I'd take that retractable any day.

If you price a rotary actuator for a C210, which are prone to cracks in normal operations you will find a good reason not to get too adventurous in Cessna RG's. Things like the PA24 are quite good with their 6.00-6 tires but you look at the 1000hr gear AD and shaking the daylights out it doesn't seem like such a good idea if you want it to last. I've examined the Beech retracts as I parted out a B55 and the gear is a work of art. None the less I sold the MLG to a guy who had a hard landing on his brother's farm strip.

Lots of smooth turf out there that won't cause much harm, but in the context of off-airport I think it's very hard on a complex/expensive/critical system for very little gain.

It all depends what you mean by "backcountry" flying. There are places that a fixed gear STOL plane can go, where no RG plane can follow.

Like has been said, the Cessna mechanisms have developed a reputation for being expensive / maintenance hungry. I have no data to support or disprove this rumour. My neighbour takes his RG Bonanza into grass airstrips and has done for 30 years or so. But there are rough airstrip and rough airstrips. Continued landings on old ATV tracks and a river flats would be a different story.

Then there is the wing design and weight.
Many RG planes were designed with a higher speed wing and tended to be cross-country cruises (heavy fit-out) plus the added weight of the gear mechanism. So at the risk of generalising, many of them need more airspeed before they start flying. This means a longer, higher speed ground roll with more weight on the wheels while they do it. Apart from causing more wear and tear, this also rules out some shorter / higher elevation airstrips.

All that being said, I would love to own an RG high speed plane which can also land at most grass airports and airstrips. There are lots of options to choose from, which fit that mission.

The 210 is a nice airplane but has an issue with "Saddles"cracking which is the gearbox area. If found cracked it is very expensive for repair. I would not using a 210 in rough field conditions.

It seems like a fitting a republic RC-3 Seabee with Bush tires might give you the ultimate off airport airplane, not to mention it is kind of a re-tractable......

27.5 Desser’s on my Seabee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pusher wrote:

27.5 Desser’s on my Seabee.

Now we're talking!

Pusher wrote:

27.5 Desser’s on my Seabee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We need more pictures!

Here is one




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I like your style.

Pusher wrote:Here is one




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was just in kelowna a couple weeks ago. I should've stopped and checked that beast out. Looks great!