Osprey Atmos 65

I'm looking into this pack from reading reviews and considering what I need in a backpack. From what I've picked up on reading about it, it's very comfortable, well made, and has well placed pockets etc. etc.

But what I am wondering is if it's worth it to buy the 65 over the 55, there's a price leap but it also gives me 1,000 more cubic in. From what I understand it's the same pack, the 65 just has more space? Also, it's a big issue that the pack is able to stow in overhead compartments in airplanes...any first hand experiences here?

I would use this pack for everything...multi-day, to multi-week treks and expeditions, climbing, and for basic travel. It needs to last...a LONG time, so obviously it must be extremely durable and wear proof.

I'm open to other suggestions for other packs as well, and first hand experiences from using the Atmos line.

-Thanks

Carry-ons need to be about 40 liters (2440 cu in) at maximum to fit in the template the airlines have at the counter and gate. The Osprey packs use the size as part of the name. So my Aether 60 is 60 liters (3660 cu in), and the Atmos 55 is 55 liters (3360 cu in), and the 65 is 65 liters (3967 cu in). These are too big to qualify as carry-on bags (not that I haven't seen people somehow getting really gigantic suitcases onto the plane). I have a couple of 40 liter packs that really push the carry-on limit - they don't fit well under the seat in a number of commercial planes and are very tight even in overhead compartments. The limit for carry-ons in the US, by the way, is 45 linear inches (9 inches by 14 inches by 22 inches), which is 45.5 liters. Some flights limit you to 1 carry-on plus one "personal item", some to 1 carry-on, period, no second item, personal or otherwise (check with the airline - I ran into both on a recent flight, with the single limit being at the change of planes, meaning the larger bag had to be checked at the gate).

I have been very happy with my Aether 60 and Barb has been very happy with her Ariel 55. I have used mine for weekend backpacks, and used it on my Kilimanjaro hike last month (of course, the required porters carried most of my load). I often carry climbing gear in the Aether (often 50-60 pounds worth) and see little wear on it in the 3 years I have had it. The Aether is a slightly lighter version of the Atmos.

Within each of their lines, Osprey keeps the same basic design for a series of capacity sizes (usually 10 liter steps), and 3 or 4 body sizes (difference is the shoulder and waist straps). If you plan on using it for expeditions, you will need a capacity of more like 100 liters or 6000 cu in. Osprey showed a couple of newer models at the OR Show last week that are geared more to expeditions (Argon 110 at 6700 cu in), but at 6.5 pounds, compared to my aging, super-trusty Dana Terraplane (100 liters or 6100 cu in capacity, which weighs 8 pounds, plus another 1.5 if I add the beaver-tail).

Size is entirely a function of personal need. My personal peeve is people bringing too much stuff on commercial aircraft. I would strongly doubt that either of my 5000 cubic inch packs fully loaded would fit in overhead compartment, and it wouldn't cross my mind to try.

My companion had a Osprey pack designed for women that malfunctioned, causing significant inconvience (during, dare I say, a mountaineering trip in Canada), although frankly, I don't remember specifically how.

The pack was over-designed, and that the failure resulted from its complexity.

Simple is a good principal in evaluating design.

...Dana Terraplane...sob, one of my favourite packs, mine was the Overkill model as I was still working in the Rockies in Alberta when I bought it. It was stolen by some vile misanthropic sub-human organism from Hades nether regions and I still miss it!

I don't know about expeditions as I am a simple mountain boy from remote BC, but, I will suggest that the Mystery Ranch G-packs fit both Bill and Calamity's criteria and they never seem to wear out. The simplicity, quality and comfort of these beat anything else I have ever tried, but, they are not "cheap" or "UL".

If, you can afford it, get an MR and it should last your lifetime.

I made an error in my last post. I meant 50 liter packs are too large, probably much too large, for overhead bins in airlines; that's 3000 cubic inches -- not 5000 cubic inches as I mistakenly wrote.

A 6500 cubic inch pack is entirely out of the question as a carry-on, if that's your question. For that matter, so is a 5000 cubic inch pack.

I'd say anything more than a daypack is too much, but I'm a fanatic and invariably restrict myself to a waistpack for the sake of efficient boarding.

My personal method for air travel, born of utterly pitiful inexperience, is to pack a pack, of whatever size, empty and inside a duffle bag, which I check rather than checking the thing itself as a piece of luggage. If nothing else, the pack straps seem vulnerable on conveyer belts.

Other reasons have to do with packing aggrievation and protecting equipment.

I do exactly the same thing, my pack goes inside a huge coated bag from Kifaru, then is zipped into an inexpensive zippered duffle from MEC, this is bulky, but, works like a charm and doesn't cost much.