In my research it seems that the SR22 Turbo does not perform any better than the SR22 at non-oxygen altitudes (< 12,000 ft). Are there good reasons to buy the turbo if I don’t expect to fly with Oxygen? Or should I save the $60K price difference?
Hamid
No.
Yes.
It’s about “options”. A turbo gives you performance options that a normally asperated engine doesn’t.
In reply to:
In my research it seems that the SR22 Turbo does not perform any better than the SR22 at non-oxygen altitudes (< 12,000 ft). Are there good reasons to buy the turbo if I don’t expect to fly with Oxygen? Or should I save the $60K price difference?
Hamid,
Your information is correct: the low-altitude performance of the two planes is comparable. Your second question - should I buy a turbo even if I mostly fly low - is more complex. Cutting through the pervasive quasi-religious posturing (available in its richness to members on COPA’s Member Forums), it boils down to this: if your projected mission profile is utilitarian rather than recreational (i.e., if you routinely fly to get places more significant than airport hamburger joints) a turbo provides significant flexibility. This is apparently true even if you’re a flatlander. But this simple touchstone is complicated by your comfort with cannulae, your individual baseline oxygen usage, your personal risk aversion, peculiarities of the TN-22, etc.
Airplane ownership seems to have as much to do with the id as it does with empirical truth. But if your purchase decision stands to be influenced by actual Cirrus user experience, I suggest you join COPA and trawl through the rich trove of posts on the topic. Separating signal from noise, I leave up to you.
-Sanjay
PS - I have assumed from your ID that your name is Hamid. If not, I apologize for the presumption. If yes, then I should point out that Premchand’s miracle of a short story about a boy called Hamid - Idgah - contains a wonderfully germane metaphor for making cost/benefit decisions like yours! The translation from Urdu is clunky, but I’m unaware of one better.
I would not buy a Turbo if I planned to fly at non oxygen altitudes. However, as a Turbo owner, I can tell you I get to the altitudes more often because of the speed and weather avoidance issues. Over and around is much better than bumping thru the clag. My plane is a dog until about 4K, above 8K IT REALLY starts to shine. O2 is no big deal after the first few times. Notice I am also a flat lander.
As Ed Benson and I have discussed below, given the parameters you outline you would have no advantage to getting a turbo over the NA SR22.
The turbo adds the advantage of expanding your operating altitudes to double what you can do with the NA SR22. The advantages of having that option are outlined below.
But if you never plan to ever fly above 12,000 feet, the turbo is not for you.
Before you decide, however, I would encourage you to go for a ride in a turbo above 12,000 feet and you may change your mind about limiting yourself to a low altitude.
Wow. Thanks to all the responses! I’m amazed at how quickly the thread has grown. That’s really good news to see such a lively community.
So I’m still a little tossed up about the Oxygen usage. How practical is Oxygen if you’re not the only person flying? Do most people ask their friends/family who might fly along to also put on Oxygen masks? Do you find that your passengers mind more than you do?
(Sanjay, btw, yes, my name is Hamid - intersting stories 
Hamid
Hamid: If we still lived out on the left coast, I probably would have bought a Turbo. You just can’t beat the turbo performance over the mountains. If you live on the right coast, as we do, then for me the NA is just an awesome choice.
Either way, choosing Cirrus, any model, is a great choice! [:)]
No one has said anything about the take off and climb performance of the NA22 vs the TN22. Does anyone have comparison numbers for let’s say a 10,000ft Density Altitude take off and climb let’s say out of Truckee or South Lake Tahoe?
Thanks
Rik
Faast Eddie is correct. If you have no ‘need’ to go higher, then there is very little benefit and the cost is to your wallet (purchase price and fuel costs) and your payload carrying ability.
However, depending upon where you fly and your missions, getting above terrain or weather may be worthwhile. Only you can make that decision. I think most pilots buy 'em because they enable them to go faster and all else is just rationalization.
In reply to:
Airplane ownership seems to have as much to do with the id as it does with empirical truth
Ohhh. That’s very heady stuff, Sanjay.
In reply to:
Ohhh. That’s very heady stuff, Sanjay.
Trust me, Dennis. If I could find appropriately illustrative cartoons and, occasionally, semi-clothed ladies, like you can, I would. Even dirty pictures speak louder than muddy words.
-Sanjay
Is that kind of like how long your member is? Or whether you have one??
In reply to:
I think most pilots buy 'em because they enable them to go faster…
If I were buying a new Cirrus it would be a turbo, but…
…speed would not be the main reason, or even a reason at all.
Whether my typical trip takes 3:30 or 3:15 is irrelevant.
My main reason would be the ability to climb above weather. There’s a huge difference between 17,500’ and 25,000’ when maneuvering around typical air mass thunderstorms, the kind we typically get in the southeast.
But that’s just me™…
I have found the real reason is just added versatility on a variety of issues.
Weather, speed, comfort are just a few. It adds so many options to a typical trip that there is just not one reason for the turbo.
But each has its own opinion. I am mostly an east coast “flat lander” and I have found the turbo has enhanced my typical trips up and down the coast a lot!
Keep in mind that the airspace between 13,000 and 18,000 is pretty empty so you also get a lot of direct routing as well.
In reply to:
There’s a huge difference between 17,500’ and 25,000’
I’m not too good at math, but I think it’s 7,500 ft.
Brain,
Like I said, I’m sold on the Turbo (in spite of not yet having flown one - hint, hint).
I put O2 in my NA SR22 and enjoyed/enjoy* flying in the mid-teens, as I’ve often reported in PIREPS here.
But if you’re not going to use O2, I’d still say the turbo would be a waste.
*I say enjoy because I’m very fortunate to still have occasional use of my old plane.
Ed:
I do not know why anyone would not want to use O2 and have a Turbo. First of all the O2 system is built into the turbo and is easy to use. The new options for O2 cannulas and O2 conserving are now better than ever. And the most efficient operating altitudes where the turbo shines is in the O2 flight levels.
So, it is true. If one would not use the O2 system, for whatever reason, the turbo would really be a waste.
Remembering the original question:
Are there good reasons to buy the turbo if I don’t expect to fly with Oxygen?
My one word answer is still, “No”.
That sounds like a question from someone who has not used the oxygen system in the turbo.
The true differences between the NA SR22 and the Turbo begin above 10,000 feet. Since you have to use Oxygen above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes, it would make no sense to ever get a turbo unless you plan to use oxygen.