What is better at high altitudes, more or less cylinders?

Forced induction.

>>17798620
correct

>>17798620
>tfw GTR btfo gm cucks even on top of the everest

File: images (6).jpg (10KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 282x179px

>>17798611

File: IMG_0981.jpg (15KB, 543x271px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 543x271px

1 stroke engine

>>17799673
Single stroke to orbit?

File: 1486758355011.gif (48KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 240x180px

>>17799665
at this rate

>>17798611
whatever has the best compression.

File: BushSaudis.jpg (25KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x200px

>>17799321

>tfw this anon doesn't realize that the top of the range C7s are supercharged

>>17800846
Dunno about that. NA plane engines have a 7-8ish:1 compression ratio. Pretty low.

>>17800678
Real talk, suppose I had the funding necessary to create and build a car. Could I contract Mistral to develop a rotary engine for car use? I imagine that Mistral may have developed a better dorito spinner than Mazda ever has.

>>17802229
rotary eninges wear out much faster than regular engines. there's a reason they aren't mass produced today. even if you could get your hands on one and you somehow were able to get it operational, it wouldn't last.

>>17802217
He said best, not highest.

>>17802254
retard

>>17802285
that's what the free market has to say about rotary engines, they're retarded.

>>17802320
rotary engines don't wear out faster than regular engines by design, you're just retarded.

File: amc eagl1.jpg (256KB, 1200x606px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x606px

>>17798611
More.

File: samurairecord12.jpg (70KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 750x422px

>>17798611
You apparently only need 4 to set the record.

>>17802254
Geiger Motor GmbH produces Wankel engine foe aviation...est 1000 hr between rebuilds, .01l oil consumption per hour @ 8000 rpm...
So you know...cause you obviously didn't...

>>17802166
>thinking a supercharged truck engine can compete with the god MUHCHEEN
Are gm cucks really this dumb

>>17802166
>>17798620
Unless your supercharger is boost pressure controlled, you're wrong.

A supercharger often only hits peak boost near peak rpm because it's spinning as fast as possible to pressurize that air. So air at a lower intake pressure will affect the overall pressure of the air after the supercharger.

Turbos excel here because they are almost always regulated by a boost controller. This controller looks inside the intake piping post turbocharger to see what the pressure is. This means it doesn't give a flying fuck as to what the outside temperature is.
The only issue here is your turbo can only build so much pressure, so if you've already just about maxed out your turbos potential, then you will see losses just like the supercharger. However, most turbos aren't maxed out and have room to stretch and create more pressure.

A good turbocharged system will see zero losses at altitude.
A good supercharged system will see minimal but noticeable losses at altitude.
A good naturally aspirated system will see very noticeable losses at altitude.

Pilot's actually talk about this, and that's why you don't want to cruise at your max altitude. Yes there's less drag, but your engine is much more starved for air and you can't cruise at the same speed you would be able to at a lower altitude.
This is where jet engines take the cake. They pressurize air to such a high degree, like a supercharger on steroids, that the losses they see are much more minimal.