Just out of interest, why don't you like turbo charged aircraft?
ABX - for the sort of flying I do, I just cannot convince myself that turbocharging is worth the additional expense maintenance wise, the increased chance of untimely maintainance, or the extra cost in fuel.
I generally fly 8-10,000', occassionally going up to 12 or so to stay on top of summer Cu. The few occassions I have gone above 12, I have had to replace the cannula type O2 mask with a full face O2 mask in order to maintain my O2 saturation above 90%, and I don't particularly like wearing the full face (nose and mouth) O2 masks.
Having flown a normally aspirated C182RG and a turbo-charged C182RG, I found that below 10,000' the turbo was no faster but used 10L/hr more than the normally aspirated one.
My IO520 powered V35B will climb to 10,000' in 10 to 12 min at the sort of weights I normally operate at, and FL150 in about 20 min. At 10,000', 2300 rpm/21" gives a TAS of 162 kts at 55 L/hr - gives me 5 and a bit hours endurance, so 3.5 to 4 hr legs with good IFR reserves.
An IO520/550 powered Bonanza/210/Mooney/whatever will do everything I require - so why bother with a turbo?
Dr 