A friend is looking to buy a 182 for the Backcountry, will be based in Telluride CO at 9,070 ft.
So he considered a turbo.

They are heavier to start with and you dont see many re start 182 s in the backcountry with mods and going to small strips.
We know turbo will be great at altittude though.
Already recommended him Sportsman STOL, VGs, bigger tires and the MT prop (believed or not very good for backcountry).

Other Advantages or disadvantages of a turbo model for backcountry flying?

Where's jomac? He's been flying his T182 in the Idaho backcountry for 10 years or more. He's a gear head though...he's probly got a turbo on his RZR, one on his snowmobile and he's probly tried turboing his motorcycle

I bet it would be a onderful airplane. DA resistant horsepower and a very forgiving heavy lifting airframe.

In that part of the world, and a factory installation, I'd certainly look very hard at it. 9 K on a cool day is a challenge if you're normally aspirated.

MTV

I fly a T182T, and at lower elevations there is no great advantage, and probably less performance than a lighter, well equipped, well flown plane. But at that elevation? Absolutely! I fly into strips with 8k to 10k AD periodically and still giggle when the thing pops off the ground and climbs out almost effortlessly. With a field elevation like that I would certainly go for the turbo if you have the choice (and the means). You will get better utility and piece of mind out of the airplane without having to start every trip lightly loaded/partial fuel to give yourself some performance margin.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think an after market turbo makes good sense. A factory turbo, if the airplane NEEDS the extra power, makes a little more sense. But with the turbo often comes extra maintenance, shortened engine life, and thereby extra cost. While my 180hp normally aspirated Lycoming is breathing hard at the DAs involved in the high country, a stock 182 is different--depending on loading, it can do quite well.

At most high country airfields, FWIW, you'll find the majority of airplanes are normally aspirated.

So your friend needs to consider how he's going to use the airplane. If most of his flights are 2 up and not fully loaded, a normally aspirated 182 will work just fine out of Telluride. If he does fill it to gross, then it'll be pretty anemic; if that's only occasionally, then no big deal as long as he plans for it. But if his regular every day flights are fully loaded, then perhaps a factory turbo makes sense, with the recognition that it will require increased maintenance.

Cary

It will be a second airplane for him a backcountry plane just to play in remote places, short strips and easy gravel bars and be able to take the kids and wife along sometimes.

For a purely backcountry plane to screw around in, I would go non-turbo, put the extra money toward useful mods.

Well.....Like Whee said ive had mine for almost 10 years...and it seems to work pretty good...here are some ideas fwiw...

the 540 lyc really is a gem...super smoothe...
it has the same turbo pkg. that the RG has, so its stock from cessna...i believe they only built less that 100 of these fixed gear models...ext. baggage and such...
mine does have vg's...diff leading edge cuff...and the fences ...
i mostly just run the stock tires..believe it or not, as i play mostly in the frank, up in the grain fields, and out in our desert...
i leave the back seat out, and fly it with about 40 gals...
i really like the load carrying capacity...right at 1492 total useful...ive not had that much in it, but i have had over 1100 a few times...and its as solid as a rock...
ive learned to fly it by the book as far as the turbo goes...3 min. max at 29" and 2400...more than that, the heat gets to building way up there...but in 3 min. at those settings that gets it done for climb out any way...it will do longer but i simply pull the MP back to 24" and 2400 and then continue to climb if needed and temps are way manageable....all in all, a good solid safe bird...if u stack up a certified 182 in the backcountry...chances are high u and your px will be OK...dont ask me how i know...did i mention that this is my 2nd 182...the one with the 470 was OK, but not my fave...

and , right now 182's seem like a bargain..even a normally aspirated 470 flown lite is a pretty good bird...and even pretty cheap to insure..unless of course u crash it......

Thinking out loud here, if I were wanting a different airplane, and if I thought a normal 230 or 235 hp 182 wasn't poopy enough, I think I'd be looking for one with a P Ponk or other higher hp conversion, sooner than a turbo'd version. I think a 300 hp 182 would be pretty super, and even at 10,000' DA, it would have 210 hp (minus losses for propeller efficiency, etc.).

But I'll stick with my current airplane, which I like a lot. Now if the FAA would just agree that medically I'm fit to fly, I'd be SOOOOOO happy!

Cary

Ive been in a couple of those higher horsepower 182's cary and u are right...they do work nicely...probably just depends on the mission for sure....!