lionel wrote:
Page 6 of the FAA type certification sheet E14EA suggests the critical altitude of the TIO-540-AB1AD is 15 000 ft, not 20 000?
Peter wrote:
But that is a whole other huge discussion, and ownership of a PA46 is a lot less nontrivial than of a TB20/21,
If you want to repair things yourself, that’s obviously true. For the majority of owners, however, the active involvement into maintenance is not more complex that signing the regular work orders for the shop – and for all of these pilots a PA46 does not make any difference to the TB20/21 (despite the obviously higher numbers on these work orders but that doesn’t make them less trivial).
But that is not the point here: The OP describes es himself as a low time pilot who wants to build experience and confidence while working towards his instrument ticket. For these kind of pilots/missions a PA46 is simply not the right plane.
If you want to repair things yourself, that’s obviously true
No suggestion of “repair things yourself”. But that’s another thread, and we’ve had many.
Page 6 of the FAA type certification sheet E14EA suggests the critical altitude of the TIO-540-AB1AD is 15 000 ft, not 20 000?
I think a turbo is not a part of the engine but, like the exhaust, is a part of the airframe. So the airframe manufacturer is not restricted by the TCDS as to which turbo they use. This is quite an interesting topic 
Maybe @Paul remembers something about this?
One difference with turbo engines is that while a NA engine is generally overhauled without the exhaust (and the exhaust is repaired as required at that time, perhaps) a turbo engine’s exhaust is usually shagged at overhaul time. TB21 owners have reported much higher overhaul costs. From here A full overhaul costs much more – $32,000 – because it includes e.g. new Lycoming cylinders and many new parts. If my engine had e.g. 1500 hours, an overhaul might be worth doing but not at 700 hours. Interestingly the TB21 engine, a TIO-540, would cost $48,000. Together with a top overhaul halfway, you are looking at a 2x engine fund or more.
Peter wrote:
I think a turbo is not a part of the engine but, like the exhaust, is a part of the airframe. This is quite an interesting topic
It does come up for overhauls: engine overhauls including turbo? propeller overhaul including governor?
Well given the budget and the newness of the PPL, the three key elements to a successful outcome for this ownership adventure are, and taking what I believe are the important ones from the forum above:
Yes turbo will be more maintenance intensive and budgeting maybe not 100% but at least 70% above NA for engine reserve would be wise. In this case I would be more concerned about reliability and groundtime, which are also impacted and do need a more involved pilot. If the wish is for long-term ownership (which I personally recommend, ownership is a steep learning curve and it is frequently not nice to start it all over), then I would say the higher capabilities of turbo will not be regretted.
Also, as a good ownership tool, consider using SavvyAviation’s or equivalent pre-buy and maintenance-assistance services.
Thinking again, there may be a fourth key element: being a mindful person willing to humbly but critically and inquisitively learn from the experience of others (as your posting on this forum shows) as well as your own will keep you enjoying flying safely for many years to come.
turbo will be more maintenance intensive
The arguments for/against a turbo depend heavily on where you are. Where I lived (SF Bay Area) it’s extremely useful since just about any serious journey involves crossing mountains, If you’re in Colorado, it’s just essential. On the east coast… less so.
In 20 years I have had one expensive incident involving the turbo, which required a turbo overhaul – iirc around $4K. Not too bad. The throttle/turbo linkage on the TR182 is a nightmare but that’s very type specific. Operating the turbo on the TR182 requires care. More recent turbo 182s (non-retract) are MUCH easier from that pov – just set the MP and forget.
Antonio wrote:
Insurability- this eliminates turbines and pressurized aircraft…no PA46, even before you consider other reasons
I am not sure how extreme the situation is in the US these days, but I also hear a lot of potential Mooney buyers can not get insurance because it is “complex”. This would also mean that the TB20 may be hard to insure, depending on the amount of hours the OP has.
Insurance in the US is a very major problem these days and one of the reasons, why Cirrus and other fixed gear airplanes do better than retracables on the market. It appears that requirements to get insured with a “complex” airplane get more and more crazy (I’ve heard the figure of 500 hrs tt up to 1000 hrs tt mentioned, which in Europe would mean maybe 5% of the GA population can get insured on one of those as owner/pilot) and the signal appears to be that the insurance market wants to get rid of the GA segment or at least is not at all interested in insuring complex aircraft (with retracable gear and variable prop) unless we are talking commercial pilots or flight schools. Insurances there appear to still be reasonably accessible for non-complex airplanes, to which Cirrus apparently is counted due to the fixed gear.
The other problem appears to be old age, we have had several people who have been Mooney pilots for decades having to sell up because once they reached a certain age, the insurers would no longer insure them on a complex. Some went back to a PA28, most gave up flying with VERY hard feelings against insurances they have paid their whole career and who now boot them out when they finally have time to fly.
Out of that perspective, the OP might well have to look there or at the very least make sure he can actually get insurance for a complex. Otherwise the whole story is mute. One agent which a lot of Mooney pilots work with and who at times has been able to sort some people out who were refused elsewhere was Parker Woodruff who runs an independent insurance agency and is an ATP and CFI himself.
johnh wrote:
The arguments for/against a turbo depend heavily on where you are. Where I lived (SF Bay Area) it’s extremely useful since just about any serious journey involves crossing mountains, If you’re in Colorado, it’s just essential. On the east coast… less so
I agree but it’s mostly takeoffs/departures? the mountain crossing itself should not rely on turbo extra power being available (maybe with afterburners?), most serious touring aircraft would clear the tops of mountains with load of margins way before reaching the peaks with/without turbo, just careful planning…
I figure out that turbo is for usual summer trips in UK & France it’s as useful as sun creams or DVD rewinders (it’s tiny useful to out climbing with some ice/dirt, as NA aircraft, even +300hp FIKI runs out of steam in FL80-FL120 bands)
I have not checked how much it’s useful for descents/landings 
most serious touring aircraft would clear the tops of mountains with load of margins
Not my experience in the SR20! Though maybe that’s precisely why it is NOT a serious touring aircraft (imo). The SR22 is OK, the SR71 even better, though maybe harder to insure.
Seriously, I’ve crossed the Sierra Nevada fine in a non-turbo 182S at 13500, but just barely made it to 13500 in the SR20 (100 ft/min at the top). I’m so used to flying with a turbo that I do start to wonder what’s going wrong after 5000 feet in a non-turbo! For CA I think it’s pretty much essential for serious touring. For Europe where I am now, probably more trouble than it’s worth unless your primary mission is Zurich – Milan.
johnh wrote:
Not my experience in the SR20! Though maybe that’s precisely why it is NOT a serious touring aircraft (imo).
I agree. It is perfectly ok flying the great plains or northern continental Europe but it is severely underpowered for flights in alpine terrain.
182’s, Mooneys and even some Pipers can do better in terms of altitude than the small Cirrus can. My humble 180 hp M20C made 17000 ft in ISA+20 and MTOW in about 35 minutes and Peter keeps showing his TB20 reaching what in the US would be the Flight Levels. An SR20 won’t do that. It is of the same performance heritage as the Grumman AA5’s which are quite lovely planes but miserable climbers.
Maybe because it was never intended as a “keeps” airplane but as an entry level plane and introduction to Cirrus and as a basic trainer. One Cirrus guy once told me that lots of people walked into their shops with the intent to buy a “cheap” SR 20 but ended up walking out with a SR22 or even SR22T. So the main reason Cirrus hangs on to the SR20 is exactly that: It offers interested parties a cheaper entry level which gets people hooked so they can sell SR22’s.
