Barnstormer wrote:Nice. So do you think I should put the 185 or the SQ2 on floats? I still need to get exploring the other half of Alaska.

185 on floats. Keep the SQ2 on wheels. More options to “do it all” than the reverse configuration. There are more off airport wheel opportunities for the SQ2 on wheels than super short lakes or sloughs.

Kinda like asking what’s the best vehicle to drive, whats the mission: driving your peeps around at hair on fire speeds, ( I heard GM is coming out with a 800hp corvette) OH Baby Punch it!
Or are you hauling a bunk of plywood in the bed, is that gas or diesel.?

Either way, corvette or pick up, they both will get you down the road, but switch the mission for what your driving and you will be disappointed, at the least.

Solution is to have both, but most of us don’t have that option. So we define on basic mission, buy what fits, and then push the envelop at both ends trying to get the most out of what we have. I’m guilty of this myself. But in reality: a 2000# empty weight aircraft is always going to be 1000# plus over a cub at empty weight. So which is going to have better STOL performance.? Seems obvious.
But as I fly over a cub on a sandbar in my 185, I’m thinking: no problem I could do that.
Then I get slapped in the face asking: why? You're on a long flight, hauling 1000 plus pounds of useful load at +130 knots. No cub can do that. Ya but, sure would be nice to land on that 300 ft gravel bar and catch some fish. Crazy how we reason on things. LOL. How much is fresh fish a pound at the store nowadays?

Anyway, I’d like to see comparison of the STOL of a stock cub and stock 185 with a1000# useful load. Maybe Valdez could come up with a similar category, STOL of a 1200# payload delivery. That would be useful load analogy.
More butter on the popcorn?

BTW
For Heavy Loads
I always was amazed at watching the Herc’s fly durning the pipeline days, they truly were/are an amazing airplane. Beautiful to watch in flight. I don’t claim to know anything other than observation, but they were impressive.
I was also impressed with the Skyvan and Sherpa models of the Short Brothers. For remote work they were the cats meow.

Oh yes, before anyone jumps me: twin otters were right in there also.
Watched one land in the turnaround unloading zone in a hellacious cross wind at Franklin Bluffs. Less than two hundred feet. Pipeline era 1974.
Otters were the main supply carrier for the camps.

Just wait until you see a Twin Otter on floats, it's a thing of beauty and no water rudders to mess with.

Putzpilot wrote:Oh yes, before anyone jumps me: twin otters were right in there also.
Watched one land in the turnaround unloading zone in a hellacious cross wind at Franklin Bluffs. Less than two hundred feet. Pipeline era 1974.
Otters were the main supply carrier for the camps.

My grandpa did amazing things with a Tri Motor Ford, now that is a great STOL machine and load hauler. Slow, expensive and not many left.

Kurt

Zzz wrote:

whee wrote:The one you have.

I know is a lame, conversation killing answer but for most pilots the plane isn't the limiting factor.

Get perfectly proficient, be smart and run what ya brung.

This is absolutely it. So many years wasted saving and worrying about building my ultimate backcountry aircraft, when I could have been flying and having adventures, making memories in a more reasonable airplane. So much of my saving tied up in a pipe dream that probably won't be finished on a timeline that actually produces those images of my young daughters riding in the back and having fun.

Could have had 2 nice 172s running well and ready to go for what I have invested, making family memories in the woods instead of the garage.

I totally agree with the above quotes.

TBM and an AS350 B3. Avgas is bad for you.

R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land. I love the RHC factory, support, and training (pilot/mechanics).

Winter darkness on a lonely logging road:


Nehalem, OR MAY-2019


“...busted...”

8GCBC wrote:R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land.

A helicopter would be awesome for the backcountry indeed, but in Alaska they’re not allowed for hunting, so that makes it a non-option for many pilots up here. Sure could land in some amazing places, though!

Brian M wrote:

8GCBC wrote:R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land.

A helicopter would be awesome for the backcountry indeed, but in Alaska they’re not allowed for hunting, so that makes it a non-option for many pilots up here. Sure could land in some amazing places, though!

Awe... I didn’t know that. Many places aren’t that welcoming including Hawaii. Oregon Coast, I’m the only regular flying most days and nobody really cares. But, I do my best to respect others. My seaplane was super loud and received a letter from Torrance once about Noise Abatement Policies. And I guy called about my amphibious Scout being loud near his home, we worked out a solution in both cases, thankfully. I’m super respectful, I’m the minority owner in the game.

These two conditions do not qualify a plane as the “ best backcountry plane”. With the additions of being a good trainer and cheap to buy, you eliminate all of the really good backcountry planes from the mix.

Super cubs, Huskies, Maules, Cessna 180/185, 206, beavers, otters, twotters... are the most favored planes for working the bush for a reason. These models aren’t cheap and they typically aren’t great trainers.

I’ve heard the Cessna skywagon referred to as “the only plane that you can’t upgrade from”. I have one, and tend to agree with that assertion.

That said, the Supercub will outperform it out in the sticks by a significant margin. For pure backcountry, a light PA-18 160 with a long flat prop is about impossible to beat. They are pretty limited when you need to cover some distance with some payload while dodging storms.

Like others have said: understand your mission... know your budget... get the plane that best suits you and focus more on your skills than the ride, and you are in the best backcountry plane for you.

Everyone's mission is different. Some want the absolute shortest landing and takeoff no matter the cost. Some want a bird that will haul several tons into a 2000 ft mud airstrip. Not everyone is going out to the smallest, most rugged strips on the backside of nowhere.

It's great hearing all the different missions and how pilots fill them.

Z you had a nice 170B. I kind of wished you had kept it. it may not be smashed as flat as a pancake now. P.S. I Sold my Stinson and my super 120 and I’m flying a 170A now!

I keep wanting another plane, but I like landing places like this: Maybe some Cubs could do it, but my per hour out of pocket expense would immediately double, or more! I just am not in a hurry, and carrying my skinny ass, a couple hundred pounds of gear and 8+ hours of mogas at 85 mph works for me. Flying out of my home 400' long mountain strip kind of automatically limits my choice of aircraft I suppose, and now, after 12 years at the "new" place, it's like JFK or LAX, no problem at all. Flying faster or hauling more holds zero interest, I have "nowhere to go, and all.... " well, you know the rest. I have considered building a third RANS S-7, but can't imagine taking time off from flying to build, screw that, if I wrecked Honey tomorrow, I'd send a complete check off to RANS the next day, and then of course would have the time to build! It has occurred to me to split the difference, buy and have in stock a complete kit, just like the new prop in the hangar, "just in case."

The attraction of back country flying is in the variety of experiences it offers and equally so the variety for airplanes that can be used. We can all "roll our own" so get out, enjoy the adventure at a level that makes you comfortable with the resources you have available to you.

8GCBC wrote:R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land.

8GCBC, look what this guy can do with a heavy 44 (loaded with pawg, photo crew and big dog). His confined/mountain technique is actually pretty good. And btw, a friend in Oregon is asking for another heli to do a model mountain shoot if you're interested.

Karmutzen wrote:

8GCBC wrote:R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land.

8GCBC, look what this guy can do with a heavy 44 (loaded with pawg, photo crew and big dog). His confined/mountain technique is actually pretty good. And btw, a friend in Oregon is asking for another heli to do a model mountain shoot if you're interested.

[emoji15][emoji1]

gbflyer wrote:

Karmutzen wrote:

8GCBC wrote:R44 (2 seat Cadet) was a good comprise for Oregon. Regarding fixed wing: I became frustrated seeing places only a helicopter could land.

8GCBC, look what this guy can do with a heavy 44 (loaded with pawg, photo crew and big dog). His confined/mountain technique is actually pretty good. And btw, a friend in Oregon is asking for another heli to do a model mountain shoot if you're interested.

[emoji15][emoji1]

I just got back into cellular range from being offshore. Sitting at the Hilton Hotel Lagoon @ Waikiki. Relaxing. Hard to imagine going to fridged Oregon right now ☔ ahh...here comes the waitress...excuse me I need a refreshment. Aloha and thank you for the offer.

I take it back, screw anymore S-7S's, now I want a R44 Awesome flying, great scenery and dog. The rest is too obvious to comment on .