TN or NA

TN or NA?

  • Turbo Normalized

    Votes: 22 51.2%

  • Naturally Aspirated

    Votes: 21 48.8%
  • Total voters
    43
Kenny Lee

Kenny Lee

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
102
Location
West Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Lee
I have a 2010 G36 NA. I have an opportunity to trade for a 2014 G36 Turbo Normalized. I mostly fly east of the Rockies in the flat lands. I’ve had all the normals concerns with the turbo normalized. Maintenance costs. Benefits. I reached out to several of my mentor pilots asking their thoughts. Their answers are all over the map. 50% are for it. 50% are against it. Of course if I flew in the Rocky mountains most everyone agrees the TN is the way to go.

i have made my decision on whether or not to go the TN route. I’m interested to see what POA members have to say.

As usual, I am expecting 100% agreement from all members.
 
There's yet another choice.....turbo charged. Not a bad one either.

Once you have the power....you'll never want to go back. Climbing at +900 fpm all the way up into the teens is nice.
 
Many choices. Turboprop. Jet. Twins. If money wasn’t an issue I’d like one of each.
 
Kenny Lee said:
I have a 2010 G36 NA. I have an opportunity to trade for a 2014 G36 Turbo Normalized. I mostly fly east of the Rockies in the flat lands. I’ve had all the normals concerns with the turbo normalized. Maintenance costs. Benefits. I reached out to several of my mentor pilots asking their thoughts. Their answers are all over the map. 50% are for it. 50% are against it. Of course if I flew in the Rocky mountains most everyone agrees the TN is the way to go.

i have made my decision on whether or not to go the TN route. I’m interested to see what POA members have to say.

As usual, I am expecting 100% agreement from all members.
Click to expand...
Why? If you’ve made your decision, why?
 
Primarily flying east of the Rockies where density altitude doesn’t get much over 3,500ft? I’d keep the NA.
 
I'm a flatlander and I'd love a turbo. Climb up into the thin air and enjoy the efficiency. Top weather. Take advantage of a 50 knot tailwind. If I could turbonormalize my plane I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could afford a 10 year old G36, I'm pretty sure I could afford the additional mx of a turbo. If you travel long distance you'll probably make it up in gas.
 
Last edited:
I chose TN because I think the 2014 G36 G1000 is WAAS while the 2010 is non-WAAS. :)
 
TN, you can dial the RPMs back, saving on engine wear and tear and cabin noise. The climb to 10,000 plus is a nothingburger with turbo vs the tango between airspeed and climb rate when NA. And yep, the higher you go, the better economy you get, and smoother ride, and monster headwinds or tailwinds. And altitude gives you options during the morning buildups. Not topping them, but a clearer picture of what is building or not. On the downside, the AD on my Rayjay nets to $3000 or so every five years. And a couple hundred he annual.
 
Have you talked to actual owners of the TN equipment or only people spitballing perceptions about maintenance costs.

I say this because in the PA-32 world, the Turbo doesn't cost NEARLY what people want to believe it does. They bring prejudices and experienced from the Continental-powered Turbo Arrows with them, and make incorrect assumptions.

I don't know anything about the G36, and don't want to imply that I do. Simply asking that you review where your data comes from. Real world beats OWT.

That said, as an owner of a Turbo PA-32, it's an easy climb to 10 or 12,000 and as my family appreciates cool, smooth air, and our minimum trip is 2hr most of the time, we're up there, or higher, a lot.
 
RgBeard. Excellent post. I’ve had an entire mix of responses. Both from people with first hand experience, and from people spitballing about maintenance costs they know nothing about. A few people spitball about maintenance costs and don’t know the difference between a true turbo and a TN system. No, I am no expert at all, far from it. I really struggled with my decision. Sort of like LOP or ROP TN or NA thoughts are all over the map. The experienced pilots that should know have differing thoughts on TN. The pilots who I felt were just spitballing things they don’t really know also have differing thoughts on it. Bottom line I felt if I chose the TN that would be a good decision. At the same time I felt if I chose the NA would be an equally good decision.
 
just spit balling without first hand experience
but I'd go turbo diffidently, in a dream world without consideration of costs
but I'd probably go NA, real world considering my somewhat frugal (-ish) nature. Simpler is usually better I find....
 
A turbo twin, and turbo single, have made me a non turbo woman. I live in a mountainous area, and my naturally aspirated 180 still does just fine thanks.
 
Would be interesting to know about each voter. Are they a cross country flyer or local burger run pilot. Would be interesting to know if their budget is limited or not. Also flat landers vs Colorado mountains
 
I own a turbo-normalized 182. Turbos & aviation go together like peanut butter & jelly.

  • Once you own a turbo, it's very difficult to go back
  • Operations are a near no brainer when high, hot, and heavy
  • Most of the people I find who don't like turbos are people "who knew a guy"
    or they bought some ragged-out old plane with a turbo at end of life

The only downside is overhaul costs at time of engine major. The turbo section will cost about 1/3 of the engine O/H costs for turbo O/H, mechanical fuel pump, oil scavenge pump, check valves, v-band clamps, waste gate, and extra oil lines.

Common example for me: Flying out of KCPR (Casper Wy) at 5300 MSL, density Alt 9000' at max gross in my 182 turbo. Decided to take-off without the turbo to show my buddy what non-turbo was like. About halfway down the runway the plane was just leaving ground effect and climbing anemically.

Having enough of this, I pushed forward the waste gate and mixture controls and about a second later 350 ft/min climb that built up rapidly to 750' ft/min.
 
Last edited:
If you pretty much only fly VFR then stay NA. But it is likely you might go or enjoy the flight a lot more with the TN when you can climb on top of the weather easily.


Brian
 
I'm a flat lander burger run flyer.....and make a trip every year or three. My Oxygen bottle never empty's.. In my case no one wanted the turbo....so it was my gain on the purchase price. Now that I have it....I'll never go back to NA. It climbs wonderfully and is not that much more expensive for me to own.

But....caveat, you will need a knowledgeable mechanic to get everything dialed in. If not, be prepared to pay someone to learn your system. In my case I (I'm an A&P I/A) replaced fine wire plugs, ignition wires, and rebuilt the mags and everything runs smooth LOP.
 
If you’re going to flush money down a hole (which is what I do to enjoy GA to its fullest and still eat, retire, stay married, lol), then get the biggest toilet you can afford.

“You only live onced” as a friend used to say.
 
I had an NA SR22 and then a TN SR22. The TN was definitely worth it for me in terms of extra speed but more importantly, flexibility for weather and winds. On weather, it was particularly useful for icing avoidance. The plane was FIKI but you still only use the ice protection to get through the ice, not stay in it. The climb performance and altitude capability of the TN made it work for 99% of flying days (for ice anyway, doesn't do much for you for thunderstorm avoidance).

Oh.. and the MX sucked on the TN.
 
NordicDave said:
I own a turbo-normalized 182. Turbos & aviation go together like peanut butter & jelly.

  • Once you own a turbo, it's very difficult to go back
  • Operations are a near no brainer when high, hot, and heavy
  • Most of the people I find who don't like turbos are people "who knew a guy"
    or they bought some ragged-out old plane with a turbo at end of life

The only downside is overhaul costs at time of engine major. The turbo section will cost about 1/3 of the engine O/H costs for turbo O/H, mechanical fuel pump, oil scavenge pump, check valves, v-band clamps, waste gate, and extra oil lines.

Common example for me: Flying out of KCPR (Casper Wy) at 5300 MSL, density Alt 9000' at max gross in my 182 turbo. Decided to take-off without the turbo to show my buddy what non-turbo was like. About halfway down the runway the plane was just leaving ground effect and climbing anemically.

Having enough of this, I pushed forward the waste gate and mixture controls and about a second later 350 ft/min climb that built up rapidly to 750' ft/min.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post.
 
Just for the record, I decided to go with the TN. I haven't made the trade yet. Plan to look at the plane today and make a decision. I struggled with the decision of whether to go TN or not. Most decisions I deal with the scales are heavily balanced one way or another and the decision is pretty easy. I found this decision tough to make, as I felt the scales were balanced in either direction. If the trade goes through, I suppose time will tell if I made the right decision.
 
Kenny Lee said:
Actually both planes are WAAS
Click to expand...
Oh, then that's quite an even split. I'd have a tough time deciding too. In cases where there's a tie, I usually vote to keep the status quo.
 
asicer said:
Oh, then that's quite an even split. I'd have a tough time deciding too. In cases where there's a tie, I usually vote to keep the status quo.
Click to expand...

This. I generally prefer to stick with known problems than unknown problems. You know your current airplane's quirks but will have to learn all the quirks of the new plane if you switch. Since you are 50/50 on your decision, I assume you will be happy either way assuming you don't encounter a major issue.
 
Never flown an turbocharged aircraft, but I'd think the TN systems would be a great compromise. Mainly that you're not forcing more air into the engine than what it basically makes at sea level, just that you're able to maintain that same power much higher up. Up at 10K, the engine doesn't know that you're not at 3K ft. Turbocharged systems are a bit different when you have higher pressures and potential overboost. I think I would have taken the TN in your scenario, too, depending on what the boot costs on your trade.
 
TN for sure.. it just makes sense. You are

(A) actually able to use your engine's sea level full rated power at altitudes greater than 0 feet. Otherwise you're just carrying around weight
(B) putting otherwise wasted exhaust gas to good use is just obvious thermodynamic sense. Why spew a ton a hot expanding energy rich exhaust when you can still harness it?

Concerned about fuel, you can still dial the thing way back in cruise.. but at least you've got the power if you want it / need it
 
Having flown both plenty...

IF you intend to use the gross weight increase...

AND you have enough runway length to spare at home drome and places you routinely visit...

THEN the mod is simply transformative, especially on that airframe (the NA G36 is my third least favorite Bonanza, ahead of the A35 and B35), and highly recommended.

$0.02
 
Last edited:
Check some exchanges, here and here, from years back regarding the very system you're planning to get into. It's not 2013 anymore (or 1996 for that matter), and that appeared to be an issue for the poster in question back then already. He never said how much it cost to yank the system out, but it couldn't have been cheap. Talk about insult to injury.

In fairness, this orphaning problem is all over the hobby, not just an issue of aftermarket turbo components. It's a real chiller when it comes to picking airplanes to sink a ton of money into.

For the record I vote for the TN, but the fleet support concerns have always given me pause, which is why I own an underpowered but simpler setup. I ops tested that theory myself in 2016 when some FBO idiots dropped a snap on tool box through my wing and crunched a bunch of stuff, to include a relatively obscure wing part. Let's just say it was a good thing it wasn't a spar carrythrough on a cardinal or 210, BE-35 ruddervator or a commander cruciform stabilizer that they pranged, but that of the toyota corolla of the fleet (PA-28 series). I hate AOG more than I hate going slower and climbing crappier than I otherwise could.

Good luck to ya on the trade.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Check some exchanges, here and here, from years back regarding the very system you're planning to get into. It's not 2013 anymore (or 1996 for that matter), and that appeared to be an issue for the poster in question back then already. He never said how much it cost to yank the system out, but it couldn't have been cheap. Talk about insult to injury.

In fairness, this orphaning problem is all over the hobby, not just an issue of aftermarket turbo components. It's a real chiller when it comes to picking airplanes to sink a ton of money into.

For the record I vote for the TN, but the fleet support concerns have always given me pause, which is why I own an underpowered but simpler setup. I ops tested that theory myself in 2016 when some FBO idiots dropped a snap on tool box through my wing and crunched a bunch of stuff, to include a relatively obscure wing part. Let's just say it was a good thing it wasn't a spar carrythrough on a cardinal or 210, BE-35 ruddervator or a commander cruciform stabilizer that they pranged, but that of the toyota corolla of the fleet (PA-28 series). I hate AOG more than I hate going slower and climbing crappier than I otherwise could.

Good luck to ya on the trade.
Click to expand...

Does RayJay have an STC for the G36? I assumed at this price point we were only discussing the Tornado Alley system.
 
schmookeeg said:
Does RayJay have an STC for the G36? I assumed at this price point we were only discussing the Tornado Alley system.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I missed the G36 part. You're probably correct on the STC holder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top