Sandbar vs Cruise eh?
Well, not all sandbars are created equal. One man's sip is another man's gulp.
Was he talking about a 100ft sandbar that is reserved for carbon cubs and the like? Or was he talking about a 300ft sandbar that is completely doable in my 170 when I'm light and have low DA?
I would agree that I wouldn't want a cub and I'm happy to give up the 100ft sandbar for something that's faster than 100mph, but I disagree that I'd give up the 300ft sandbar for more speed, here is why:
In order to do a 300ft sandbar in an airplane that weighs 1700lbs with me and a splash of gas means that the same airplane needs around 2000 ft in the same conditions to clear a bunch of 100ft tall trees. When you add high DA due to mountain flying, obstacles, and another 400lbs of people, gear, and fuel, that 300ft sandbar airplane becomes what I would call the bare minimum for backcountry flying.
It's easy to say you don't need a 300ft sandbar capable airplane, but many forget that a 3000ft strip at 3-4k alt, with wife, campsite, and some extra gear is exactly the same airplane.
So, in my mind, this really boils down to two things: What is the definition of "backcountry flying" and "how much diversity do you really want"
First, backcountry flying. If define that as Johnson Creek or Cavanaugh Bay, well, then an RV can already operate in there just fine. It just depends on which end the little wheel is on and how much you trust the gear to keep the prop out of the dirt. If you are talking about the strip next to your favorite campsite, hunting spot, or buddies cabin, then you probably have a different definition of backcountry. Further, for some, backcountry means the 300ft flat spot next to the mountain where your sheep hunting permit is.
Second, how much diversity do you really want? Do you want two go fast airplanes, one with a high wing, and one with a low wing? Or do you want one go fast airplane, and one that can haul you and kit in and out of remote places? For my part, I truly don't understand the RV crowd wanting another fast airplane. I think DR got it right when he said he wants a RV that does cub things as that is the spectrum not already covered.
For some people the perfect 2 airplane hangar is a cub and a 180. You have the fast-ish hauler and the slow off airport (like stuff not on a sectional) exploring airplane. For others, the perfect setup is a 180 and a Bonanza. It seems like the RV crowd wants a 182RG and a Bonanza (sticking with the certified theme). Why?
Why is going fast so much more important than everything else? I find an aircraft's usefulness is far more dictated by its load carrying capacity, safety, and operational flexibility than speed. I'd rather have an airplane that can complete the mission 30 minutes slower than an airplane that defines the mission, or can't complete it at all.