[n86121]

As a helicopter owner pilot, I originally really saw no need to go over 1,000ft.
There's nothing to see up there.
So why would anyone need turbos?

To qualify for insurance I flew in a non-turbo w two instructors. Barney was a little skinny guy, maybe 140 lbs, Byron was like a linebacker, maybe 250. And my modest (then) 160 lbs) or so.

I would reimburse them an equivalent cost back and forth to Boston. They'd get flight time in their leaky old 337, and I'd get flight time w instructors going back and forth to Boston whenever I needed.

It also sounded really impressive when I could say, "Let my call my pilotS (note plural), and have them bring the plane up from Washington."

Their old skymaster left a trail of oil through the sky, but otherwise it was a nice image.

ANYWAY,

I noted that climb from 9 to 10k ft w Barney and Byron in summer was slow.
No big deal, who goes up there?

When I was looking I considered pressurized de-iced and everything else.
Having come from helicopter ownership, I realized those would be a lot of systems to maintain that I would rarely use.

An old timer put me onto 337's, extolling the benefits of the RSTOL.

Having had the airplane for 25+ years now, yes, it is REALLY NICE to be able to boogey-climb above the convective layer quickly. Especially w kids who don't like bumps.

RSTOL trick (that may also apply to non-turbo, non RSTOL):
Full power,
cowl flaps full open,
about 120 mph,
1/3rd flaps LEFT DOWN,
climbing close to 2,000 FPM (up to whatever altitude you want), and
you can still see the horizon in front of you.

So yes, originally a "turbo skeptic," for fixed wing VERY NICE to have.