Cool, I am flattered, I'll explain, it could be important enough,
because fuel usage is important for airplane travelling distance and travelling time.
In some very old entry (was it in the Tornado wishlist ? ) I remarked the fast sucking property of afterburners, they really suck
(full use of afterburners on ground level gives some rough 5 minutes of fun before emptiness), however, using only 100 % throttle without the afterburners gives about 45 minutes for one mission (plenty of time for many targets and a relaxed return)
---------------------------------------------
BUT now 2 new parts in that sheet:
1st - the dependency between engine throttle setting and fuel usage on ground ( i was lazy there and made only 3 correlations, as for 80 %, 90 % and 100 %, but the resulting graph should nicely enough show a parable similar as it is with cars with higher speeds and their fuel using correlation, really here :
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/241091063_fig2_Fig-2-Specific-fuel-consumption-graph-for-representative-diesel-generator-versus-engine )
2nd - the influence of height (and therefore influence of surrounding air pressure) on fuel usage is
somewhat trickier, because you need to get to a constant starting position for all influencing factors (luckily it's for this reason only height and weight --> including the fuel) so i needed only once take the time for burning the fuel on ground for that in the first part, the next "stops" in midair were at 20 000 feet and at 35 000 feet with about 8000 LBs (british pounds, from latin libra lb - circa o.45 kg) of fuel left, then counting the time for burning up 500 LBs of fuel in the air.
When i let excel/ open office calculator do the math for me, I was surprised and yet not, BECAUSE why do airlines get up high to travel-height
?
Precisely --> for saving fuel and having better aerodynamic conditions !
short dull explanation: Combustion needs a combustible, organic matter AND OXYGEN
the oxygen partial pressure in the air lowers as the air pressure lowers so a complete combustion needs with less available oxygen logically less organic matter.
So from this point of view the airplanes would go slower and slower the higher they would get, but since the air matter in great height does not hinder the airplane as much as on the ground, it can provide nearly the same possible speed (or even a little bit more) like on ground level..
Though there is a limit there and quite somewhere near 35 000 feet without using afterburners and a Tornado, then the leftover surrounding air matter is not sufficient to carry the flying vehicle and a stall will take place
(there was some real crash accident for some passenger airline with bad sight in the past and the pilots didn't notice the stall and wondered about their instruments showing a steady drop of height but the nose above the artificial horizon and they wondered and set the throttle to full thrust and dropped and wondered and crashed without the necessary stall recovery maneuver)
-----------
Some additional results in the sheet: flying time and travel distance for 90 % and 100 % on ground level are similar enough so that I keep my old statement "just set the throttle to 100% and sweep the wings accordingly without using some automatic throttle system", but there is now a nice new insight about travelling higher and even farther than 450 nm (already on ground level) and those 48.6 minutes of flying time. Thise time prolongs in 35 000 feet to about 157 minutes if you would have started there with those 10720 LBs of full fuel, so the gain would be somewhere near of 2 hours still, I guess.
And I am still NOT even considering those bulky, unnecessary drop tanks !!!!!!!
Which now should have become FINALLY AND FOREVER obsolete on this tiny 90 x 90 nautical mile war garden .
And there is even further the minimum airplane weight without any additional Battlefield Loadout (i used about 15000 weapon-LBs for those values)