Turbo vs NA

[n86121]

20 years ago, when I bought my turbo 337, I had not really seen the need for turbos, but this one was STOL, etc, so I bought it.

I transitioned in a non-turbo, and remembered an anemic rate of climb once above 8,000 or so, with three on board plus luggage.

20 years later, I can testify the best part of the turbo's is they allow you to maintain a high climb rate all the way, to as high as you want (the best thing should you find yourself in icing by the way). In the 10k++ ft haze around Washington DC summers, it's nice to climb FAST to get above it all.

Trubo's also give you the OPTION of going fast at altitude IF YOU WANT. As a helicopter pilot first, often going down the beach, I often like low and slow. Throttle back, and you've got the efficiency of a C182, with a LOT more payload, and total redundancy.

The 337 turbos have automatic wastegates, which means
a) You can almost set and forget them to a desired MP pressure (almost), and
b) If you want to loaf along at low power and fuel flow, then just throttle back, bring the turbos almost idle, and you have a regularly aspirated engine.

You can have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, IF you take advantage of their boost in power at altitude, they will use more fuel.
If you operate the like a non-turbo, I speculate the engines work just like a non-turbo. MP is MP.

In 20 years I've overhauled both turbos to new, at about $3.5k each.
In the overall scheme of things not a big deal.

D