it seems that F-22 dont need A/B..
I think that the F-22:s nozzles make all the difference.. to make the high excaust speed needed (effective in high speed) without the afterburner you have to have a good restriction in the backend. This for creating a high pressure in the backend. The pressure accelerates the escaping excaust even more.
The normal nozzle as F-16, Gripen or even F-35 have, dont seem to be able to restrict the flow that much, therefore not as fueleffcient or fast in supercruise.
as an example:
The speed of the excaust at takeoff moves 1,5 mach faster backwards than a plane at 1,5 mach.. the speed must be compensated.
So if you have an engine that only have the excaust speed of 1,5 mach, all thust is gone at 1,5M speed of the airplane. Still the engine burns as much fuel. At standstill that engine could even be as effective as making a VTOL, because is shuffles a bigger mass of air instead of smaller mass with speed.

Also a low by-pass should also increase the efficency in hi speeds due to higher temps and pressure to compensate for a not so good nozzle restriction. thou lower efficency at lower speed.

Do you follow?

I’m afraid you are off the mark as to how a gas turbine engine works, especially the thrust nozzle.
A normal convergent thrust nozzle is in general set to a point where the gas-flow is “choked” that means that the gas velocity is Mn 1.0. If you wish to accelerate it further then you need a con-di (convergent-divergent) nozzle.
Because the a/c is travelling Mn 1.5 doesn’t mean that the gas-flow rearwards exceeds Mn 1.0, perhaps you should read up on Mach, start with the definition.
Also increasing the pressure in the rear of the engine will only make it stall/surge, once the compressor itself chokes.
There are an awful lot of good books on how gas turbines work. I would suggest you read one.

As a wild guess…..were any EEL’s fitted with a Rocket motor for some sort of trials? Tropopause isn’t so important on Rocket Fuel. Wild guess, but possibly the only way he could get 1.5 miles higher than others.

If I remember correctly a P1b and a DB a/c were fitted with a rocket pack but it was never use at Sqn level.

Actually 50% is more a BALLPARK “rule of thumb”. And note that Schorsch’s numbers add up to 40%, not TOO far from the “quck & dirty estimate” of 50%.

Of couse in reality MANY factors come into play that can alter the actual % somewhat. If you are actually trying to do an ‘accurate’ estimate/calculation chances are you don’t have enough information to be as accurate as you would like.

Actually, 50% wouldn’t be a bad estimate. It’s what I was quoted for the Lightning’s over-wing tanks at the servicing school.
At cruise speed of course.

FYI

I believe the Supercruise of Mach 1.2 was for a clean Gripen 2 Seater…..Which, they claimed had better aerodynamics than the single seaters.

It is possible, the T-bird Jaguar was quicker than the single seat.
When I was on II (a/c) sqn we were replacing the 102 engines with higher thrust 104’s. Our boss took out the first single seat equipped with them and tried to out-drag the T-bird fitted with 102’s, he lost. He wasn’t very pleased when he climbed out.

Sorry, didn’t see this post.
F414 40.000 ft Mach 1.2 =8481 pounds of thrust.

Does that mean i should calculate with 8.481 lbs instead of 15.000 ?
Or should i assume it still burn the same amount of fuel on max dry setting, but with less effect ?

If the sfc remains the same (which it should do) then it will burn less fuel.
There is less thrust at altitude because the air is less dense. The FCU (fuel control unit) takes this into account and trims the fuel flow accordingly. On the RR Avon they used to call it the amplification ratio. What the FCU did was to trim back the fuel pressure 60 psi for every 1 psi drop in air pressure, which seeing as the overall fuel-air ratio (FAR) was 60:1 would seem logical.
How it is trimmed these days with FADEC I’m afraid I couldn’t say, but basic principals remain the same.

Beyond 60k special equipment is needed, which is cumbersome and doesn’t help the pilot to fly his mission. Operationally such altitudes are useless, as they can only be achieved with prolonged afterburner use and supersonic speeds (yes, even the mighty mighty F-22 will have to use it).
They are printed everywhere because they impress they laymen (which they apparently do quite successfully) and have no tactical significance (a bit like top speed).

Height can be turned into speed at will.

I remember little red tractors on eggs, but not HP motifs…… 😀

Nope, no tractors:)

It makes me wonder what I’d get for my Handley-Page yolk motif;)