You might start by looking at the planes than have been designed and successfully flown in rough "bush" conditions. The DeHaviland Beaver and Piper Super Cub come to mind immediately. Both have high aspect ratio wings with flaps, big taildragger wheels, and tall chunky fuselages. They also are both squirrely on the ground handling because of the short fuselages and small tails. Have a look at the landing gear designs of those planes because they are proved to be tough enough to handle the bounciest places.
I watched a lot of planes crash at the Lockheed contests. What was fairly typical was an inexperienced pilot takes off, fears being near the ground, so he points the nose about 30 degrees up and flies the plane into a full stall. The planes with the airfoils that the books say give the best lift at slower airspeeds would do a snappy stall at that point and head for Earth. Some pilots recovered, while others didn't. The more moderate designs survived that terrible takeoff and then had the wind to handle. Maybe 1 out of every 6 planes had aerodynamics that made them somewhat manageable in the wind. That's the kind of thing that a pilot thinks about, not an engineering student. If they managed to correct in the wind turbulence they then had to land. Overflaring was by far the most common error there which usually results in a nose in. This is where not going too hot on your airfoil really pays off because gentle stall characteristics make for gentle landings. Again, Cubs and Beavers.