Andy,

It depends on how you will be flying it.I had reservations about turbo'ed
aircraft
at first. Mainly a lot of people tell me that turbochargers cause problems.
That's
not what I found to be. I replaced the engines last year (you do have to
prepare
for that: around $80k). Both engines made TBO with no turbo problems. The
left
engine was 50 hrs over and the right one was 100 hrs over (replaced 50 hrs
later).
The right engine was still in good shape but I felt that beating the $2500
price increase
was to my advantage. I put 5 jugs on in the time the previous engines were
on the
plane. I owned the plane for about the last 800 hrs on those engines. So I
guess the
main issue is mission. The non turnbo'ed should burn abt 24 gph and mine
about
30gph (book says should get 28 in cruise but I can't). I don't run lean of
peak and try
to cruise at 65% all of the time. I expect the non turbo'ed to be 15 to 20
kts slower at
12,000' (where I reall like to fly). I have crosssed the Rockies 4 to 5
times at 16,000
& 17,000 feet. I flew the coastal route to Alaska in July this year and had
to go to
16000 to stay out of the ice (mines's not de-iced by the way). I wouldn't
have gone
up the coast without being able to go high.

I LIKE THE TURBO AND WOULD DO THE SAME THING AGAIN!

Hope this helps.

Mark


wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks Mark- that's what I wanted to know. Roomy that. My comanche is
42" or so at the elbow-B55 felt a little tighter. I need to go fly a
310.

What are your thoughts Turbo vs not for the 310?

Thanks again.

Andy