User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Dassault - why trijets?

Sun Jul 03, 2016 3:48 am

What is Dassault's specific reason for continuing to use trijets? I would assume that it is to be able to sell it as a reliability enhancement, but presumably their aircraft are less efficient than their competitors.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:36 am

Power to get in and out of smaller fields, more than 2 engines for flying over ocean, they have a niche with clients that will pay extra for that which is not available from competitors.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:26 am

Piece of mind for the owner down the back is far, far more important than burning a bit more fuel. Consider this, the internet bill for a transatlantic crossing can easily top 20.000 USD - which the owners are happy to pay. In the light of that, fuel efficiency becomes mainly a question of having enough onboard to give you the required range, not how much you burn per hour.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18922
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:49 pm

b747400erf wrote:
Power to get in and out of smaller fields, more than 2 engines for flying over ocean, they have a niche with clients that will pay extra for that which is not available from competitors.

Exactly. It also provides redundancy that allows for takeoffs if a part is out. For example, if an air bleed valve is pinned closed or a generator is out, the tri-jet Falcons may still take off but could not fly ETOPS with MEL'd items out.


To everyone: The cost is fuel burn, range (the added weight of an engine costs fuel burn), and maintenance bill (servicing that 3rd engine at a more expensive to reach location). But one cannot argue with the short field performance.

Falcon has low level work going on the Falcon 9X, their next trijet. It will have the 5X cross section, but stretched (studies in work). Current plan is three Safran Silvercrest engines, but Pratt keeps talking as they want the PW812 (in development for Gulfstream and possibly an engine switch on the Hemisphere). The PW812's disadvantage is cost and a small weight addition. The benefits of the PW812 would be earlier time to market (due to Silvercrest going back to CDR), fuel burn, longer maintenance intervals, and slightly more thrust (if utilized for higher cruise speeds).

I like the tri-jet concept. One often unspoken benefit is earlier time to market. By using easier to integrate engines (e.g, the PW300 family or the Honeywells vs. BR700s), entry into service happens six to twelve months earlier. That was important for the Falcon 50 and 7X. I'm not sure about the 900... However, in my opinion that was more of a well done NEO than a new concept.

The other advantage is easy stretches due to the cruise thrust surplus. The Falcon 8X is giving up takeoff performance for range and cabin volume. The 'easy stretch' principle was also done with the 900 evolution of the 50 trijet.

For the record, I'm amazed how long the Falcon 20 cross-section persisted in the tri-jets and Falcon 2000. That said, between Cessna/Gulfstream on the low end (Horizon and the 3rd P42 jet in development) and Gulfstream (new G500/G600) and Bombardier (Global family), Falcon needs to move on to a modern (more space vs. drag efficient with superior noise insulation) cross section (5X & 9X). Until they have those new cross sections out, sales will be slow, even of the wonderful 8X.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:45 pm

lightsaber wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
Power to get in and out of smaller fields, more than 2 engines for flying over ocean, they have a niche with clients that will pay extra for that which is not available from competitors.

Exactly. It also provides redundancy that allows for takeoffs if a part is out. For example, if an air bleed valve is pinned closed or a generator is out, the tri-jet Falcons may still take off but could not fly ETOPS with MEL'd items out.

There is no ETOPs for Part 91 business jet operations. Gulfstreams IIs were flying in the NAT system in the 1970s.
But redundancy is certainly improved with three engines, for the customers peace of mind.


To everyone: The cost is fuel burn, range (the added weight of an engine costs fuel burn), and maintenance bill (servicing that 3rd engine at a more expensive to reach location). But one cannot argue with the short field performance.

Falcon has low level work going on the Falcon 9X, their next trijet. It will have the 5X cross section, but stretched (studies in work). Current plan is three Safran Silvercrest engines, but Pratt keeps talking as they want the PW812 (in development for Gulfstream and possibly an engine switch on the Hemisphere). The PW812's disadvantage is cost and a small weight addition. The benefits of the PW812 would be earlier time to market (due to Silvercrest going back to CDR), fuel burn, longer maintenance intervals, and slightly more thrust (if utilized for higher cruise speeds).

I like the tri-jet concept. One often unspoken benefit is earlier time to market. By using easier to integrate engines (e.g, the PW300 family or the Honeywells vs. BR700s), entry into service happens six to twelve months earlier. That was important for the Falcon 50 and 7X. I'm not sure about the 900... However, in my opinion that was more of a well done NEO than a new concept.

The other advantage is easy stretches due to the cruise thrust surplus. The Falcon 8X is giving up takeoff performance for range and cabin volume. The 'easy stretch' principle was also done with the 900 evolution of the 50 trijet.

For the record, I'm amazed how long the Falcon 20 cross-section persisted in the tri-jets and Falcon 2000. That said, between Cessna/Gulfstream on the low end (Horizon and the 3rd P42 jet in development) and Gulfstream (new G500/G600) and Bombardier (Global family), Falcon needs to move on to a modern (more space vs. drag efficient with superior noise insulation) cross section (5X & 9X). Until they have those new cross sections out, sales will be slow, even of the wonderful 8X.

Lightsaber
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2541
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:46 am

maxpower1954 wrote:
Falcon needs to move on to a modern (more space vs. drag efficient with superior noise insulation) cross section (5X & 9X).


They need to enlarge the cross-section enough to create a stand-up cabin height. The Gulfstream G650 has a stand-up cabin, Falcon doesn't.
Last edited by IPFreely on Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:48 am

B777LRF wrote:
Piece of mind for the owner down the back is far, far more important than burning a bit more fuel. Consider this, the internet bill for a transatlantic crossing can easily top 20.000 USD - which the owners are happy to pay. In the light of that, fuel efficiency becomes mainly a question of having enough onboard to give you the required range, not how much you burn per hour.



Are you really claiming that using the internet will cost a private jet $20,000 for a crossing? And by the way it's "peace of mind". Sorry to be a grammar Nazi.
 
chornedsnorkack
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:39 pm

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:02 am

IPFreely wrote:
They need to enlarge the cross-section enough to create a stand-up cabin height. The Gulfstream G650 has a stand-up cabin, Falcon doesn't.

The heights seem to be:
Falcon 7X, Gulfstream 550, Global 6000 - all 188 cm
Global 7000 - allegedly 191 cm
Gulfstream 650 - 196 cm
Falcon 5X - 198 cm
E-jets - 200 cm
Is that correct?
What does Falcon 9X weigh?
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:38 pm

N328KF wrote:
What is Dassault's specific reason for continuing to use trijets? I would assume that it is to be able to sell it as a reliability enhancement, but presumably their aircraft are less efficient than their competitors.


Just becasue It's a trijet, it does not necessarily mean it's more thirsty.
Remember, Dassault designs High performance single pilot fighter jets, as a result their engineering capabilities are much more advance than what Gulfsteam/Bombardier.


For example,
Falcon 7X is 23% lighter than G550(70K vs 91K lb MTOW), and can carry twice the payload of G550 at max fuel. (4000lb vs 2105 lb).

Falcon 900LX and Challenger 650 has similar MTOW, but 900LX offers 20% more passenger cabin volume, (1,200 vs 1,000 cubic feet), double the payload at max fuel( 2500 vs 1300 lb) and 20% more range (4,750 vs 3960 nm) compared to 650.

Despite being a TriJet, Dassault aircraft are more fuel efficient than comparable two engine aircraft.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:22 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Are you really claiming that using the internet will cost a private jet $20,000 for a crossing? And by the way it's "peace of mind". Sorry to be a grammar Nazi.


The highest I've seen was around 35K for a London-KL flight on a GLX with 8 pax, who were all on-line for much of the flight. Utilising satellites in an unregulated market catering to a captive audience, makes the prices absolutely eyewatering. As another example of how bonkers the prices are, if you're watching a Netflix movie on a satellite broadband connection from an aircraft, expect to pay around 5K USD for the 'pleasure'.

And thanks for the correction.
Signature. You just read one.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2541
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:27 pm

B777LRF wrote:
if you're watching a Netflix movie on a satellite broadband connection from an aircraft, expect to pay around 5K USD for the 'pleasure'.


It's probably worth buying the DVD instead.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:43 am

AirbusCanada wrote:
N328KF wrote:
What is Dassault's specific reason for continuing to use trijets? I would assume that it is to be able to sell it as a reliability enhancement, but presumably their aircraft are less efficient than their competitors.


Just becasue It's a trijet, it does not necessarily mean it's more thirsty.
Remember, Dassault designs High performance single pilot fighter jets, as a result their engineering capabilities are much more advance than what Gulfsteam/Bombardier.


I might be willing to buy the rest of your point, but I am skeptical about this part. You do know who Gulfstream's parent company is, right? I suspect they could keep up with Dassault in engineering resources.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:21 pm

I might be willing to buy the rest of your point, but I am skeptical about this part. You do know who Gulfstream's parent company is, right? I suspect they could keep up with Dassault in engineering resources.


Key difference between Dassault and Gulfsteam:

    Gulfstream's parent General Dynamics does not have any Military Aerospace capabilities. GD's aerospace portfolio is limited to Gulfsteam and Jet Aviation. (http://www.generaldynamics.com/our-businesses)

    Gulfstream's Engineering talents are not sheared with other GD subsidiaries.

    Dassault Aviaton(DA) is a single company that produces Mirage/Rafale fighter jets as well as Falcon business aircraft.

    Dasault Group is the Parent company of DA. Like Gurfsteam, DA does not share engineering resources with sister companies within Dassault Group, like Dassault Systems.

    DA uses the same Engineering resources to produce Military and business aircraft (like Sukhoi in Russia).

    A lot of the Technology used in Falcon business jets(like Fly by Wire, Falcon Eye)were transferred from their military aircraft programs
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:49 pm

Yes, my friend used to work at one of the Bizjet internet providers. In one case, there was a special patent to sequence the satellite handoffs. A guy owned that patent, which I think expired. Only a few providers of the technology now. The price was whatever he wanted it to be. And he was dealing with the richest, most powerful audience in the world. People who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $20,000 coin if they saw one. They just want the internet to work, globally and only 1-2-3 outfits in the world had the technology.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:27 pm

AirbusCanada wrote:
I might be willing to buy the rest of your point, but I am skeptical about this part. You do know who Gulfstream's parent company is, right? I suspect they could keep up with Dassault in engineering resources.


Key difference between Dassault and Gulfsteam:

    Gulfstream's parent General Dynamics does not have any Military Aerospace capabilities. GD's aerospace portfolio is limited to Gulfsteam and Jet Aviation. (http://www.generaldynamics.com/our-businesses)

    Gulfstream's Engineering talents are not sheared with other GD subsidiaries.

    Dassault Aviaton(DA) is a single company that produces Mirage/Rafale fighter jets as well as Falcon business aircraft.

    Dasault Group is the Parent company of DA. Like Gurfsteam, DA does not share engineering resources with sister companies within Dassault Group, like Dassault Systems.

    DA uses the same Engineering resources to produce Military and business aircraft (like Sukhoi in Russia).

    A lot of the Technology used in Falcon business jets(like Fly by Wire, Falcon Eye)were transferred from their military aircraft programs


It's more complicated than that. General Dynamics may not currently have other aviation assets besides Gulfstream, but they have a long history in aviation. they (ironically) owned Gulfstream rival Canadairs, who built under license many US military jets for the Canadians including the the F-86 Sabre and F-104 Starfighter. Convair was also owned by GD when it produced their century series figthers, the B-58 Hustler, and the 880 and 990 airliners. They also owned Cessna from a period in the 80s and into the 90s, and were the designers and builders of the F-16 Falcon before that was sold to LM.

Gulfstreams history with the company is quite recent, with GD only buying them in 1999. Guflstream was owned by fabled US defense company Grumman for most of their history, and their legacy series jets, the G450 and G550, are all evolutions of the original Gulfstream I turboprop and Gulfstream II jet of the 50's and 60's. The Falcon lineup has benefited not just from Dassault's engineering expertise, but from being newer designed airplanes. the Challenger 650 is an evolution of the original Challenger 600 which was introduced in 1978, whereas the 900 entered service in the 80s. Similarly, when comparing the 7x and G550, it's worth noting that the G550's service entry precedes the 7x by 2 years, and more importantly, is merely an update of the mid 90s GV, itself a legacy Gulfstream based on the original models. Also worth noting is that the 7x lags the G550's maximium range by something near 1000 nm. While it undoubtedly burns more fuel than the Falcon, at similar mission lengths, its capabilities will certainly be far closer. Noteworthy is that the G500 and G600, being newer designs, seem likely to offer similar payload range capabilities, take off performance, while being dramatically faster.
 
AirbusCanada
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:14 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:42 pm

Guflstream was owned by fabled US defense company Grumman for most of their history, and their legacy series jets, the G450 and G550, are all evolutions of the original Gulfstream I turboprop and Gulfstream II jet of the 50's and 60's.


I think we should compare apples to apples here.
All Falcon Aircraft are evolution of Falcon 20, which goes back to Early 60's.

The Falcon lineup has benefited not just from Dassault's engineering expertise, but from being newer designed airplanes. the Challenger 650 is an evolution of the original Challenger 600 which was introduced in 1978, whereas the 900 entered service in the 80s.


Falcon 900 is an evolution of Falcon 50, which entered service before the original Challenger 600.

Falcon 50 itself a development of the earlier Falcon 20. Falcon 50 entered service in 1979.

Similarly, when comparing the 7x and G550, it's worth noting that the G550's service entry precedes the 7x by 2 years, and more importantly, is merely an update of the mid 90s GV, itself a legacy Gulfstream based on the original models.


In terms of aircraft development timeline, 2 years is not very long time. Global Express entered service six years before the G550.
Also worth noting that 7X is not a clean sheet design, it is derived from the 900, itself a legacy aircraft derived from Falcon 50.

Also worth noting is that the 7x lags the G550's maximium range by something near 1000 nm.


Its more in the range of 600-700NM.

While it undoubtedly burns more fuel than the Falcon, at similar mission lengths, its capabilities will certainly be far closer.


For similar mission, (Same payload & range), 7X should burn about 20% less fuel than G550 becasue Falcon 7X is 23% lighter than G550(70K vs 91K lb MTOW), and can carry twice the payload of G550 at max fuel. (4000lb vs 2105 lb), despite having a third engine.
7X does have about 10% smaller cabin vs the G550.

Just from the above numbers, you can tell 7X is much better engineered aircraft than any of it's two engine rivals.

Noteworthy is that the G500 and G600, being newer designs, seem likely to offer similar payload range capabilities, take off performance, while being dramatically faster.


G650/600/500 are clean sheet designs with much newer technology.
They should be compared to 5X, not the 7X/8X.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:07 pm

The correct answer of course is to have both. One fleet I know in the USA has the G-V for intercontinental operations, and 2 Falcon 900s for within-North America operations. And they say money can't buy happiness.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Dassault - why trijets?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:39 am

AirbusCanada wrote:
Guflstream was owned by fabled US defense company Grumman for most of their history, and their legacy series jets, the G450 and G550, are all evolutions of the original Gulfstream I turboprop and Gulfstream II jet of the 50's and 60's.


I think we should compare apples to apples here.
All Falcon Aircraft are evolution of Falcon 20, which goes back to Early 60's.

The Falcon lineup has benefited not just from Dassault's engineering expertise, but from being newer designed airplanes. the Challenger 650 is an evolution of the original Challenger 600 which was introduced in 1978, whereas the 900 entered service in the 80s.


Falcon 900 is an evolution of Falcon 50, which entered service before the original Challenger 600.

Falcon 50 itself a development of the earlier Falcon 20. Falcon 50 entered service in 1979.



I have to disagree. While the 20 and 50 do share a common fuselage design, the 900 has a totally different cross section and is therefore a largely new design. By comparison, the G1 and GV share the same cross section and fuselage design. Dassault had a lot more opportunities to find weight savings designing a totally new fuselage cross section than Gulfstream did stretching the original tube. The Challenger is even more limited. While Gulfstream has done work on the wings, nose, windshield, and substantial work on the engines going from GII to GV, the Challenger hasnt' changed nearly as much. Same wing, same fuselage, same nose. The engines underwent one major upgrade to the CF34s going from 600 to 601, but it's been CF34 derivatives ever since.

AirbusCanada wrote:
Similarly, when comparing the 7x and G550, it's worth noting that the G550's service entry precedes the 7x by 2 years, and more importantly, is merely an update of the mid 90s GV, itself a legacy Gulfstream based on the original models.
In terms of aircraft development timeline, 2 years is not very long time. Global Express entered service six years before the G550.
Also worth noting that 7X is not a clean sheet design, it is derived from the 900, itself a legacy aircraft derived from Falcon 50.


The G550 is merely an update on the GV. It was not really 21st century design. As I said, the GV is really a stretched and reworked GII. It suffers the same limitations that Boeing is finding with the 737 of trying to cram modern technology and updates into an old airframe design, although without having to worry about maintaining the common type rating to its older brethren like Boeing does (and with the benefit of landing gear changes). The 7x was a far bigger update vs the 900. It shares the cross section of the 900 yes. But the nose and windshield are slightly different, the wing and center fairing are very different, and it has FBW.

AirbusCanada wrote:
Also worth noting is that the 7x lags the G550's maximium range by something near 1000 nm.


Its more in the range of 600-700NM.


We're both wrong. Split the baby in half, its 800nm per manufacturers specs (5950 for the 7x, 6750 for the G550).

AirbusCanada wrote:
While it undoubtedly burns more fuel than the Falcon, at similar mission lengths, its capabilities will certainly be far closer.


For similar mission, (Same payload & range), 7X should burn about 20% less fuel than G550 becasue Falcon 7X is 23% lighter than G550(70K vs 91K lb MTOW), and can carry twice the payload of G550 at max fuel. (4000lb vs 2105 lb), despite having a third engine.
7X does have about 10% smaller cabin vs the G550.

Just from the above numbers, you can tell 7X is much better engineered aircraft than any of it's two engine rivals.


Your numbers are off. The Gulfstream can outlift the Falcon on comparable missions. Your 4k payload is the 7x's max payload, not available payload at max range. You have to account for the Gulfstreams extra range. The GV's max payload is 6100 lbs, and it can carry that 5416 nm. The G550 has a max payload of 5800 lbs which it can take 5767nm, basically the maximum range of the 7x. Loading up the 7x with its 4400 lb payload only leaves enough fuel for a 5000nm trip, shorter than either Gulfstream. So the Gulfstreams are carrying around 1500lbs more payload 500-750 nm further. To match the G550 range with max payload, the 7x needs full tanks, only allowing a 1660 lb payload, substantially less than what the G550 can carry that far (5800 lbs). That tanks full payload is a bit more than the Gulfstream V's tanks full payload of 1500 lbs and a bit less than the G550's 1700 lbs. However, both Gulfstreams are going a good deal further with those payloads.

Also notworthy is that the Global 5000 also outlifts the 7x. It has a massive max payload of 7100 lbs that it can carry nearly as far as the 7x carries its 4400 lbs (4958nm for the 5000 vs 5000nm for the 7x). It's maximum range is slightly shorter than the 7x (only 5350 nm), but its tanks full payload at that range is nearly twice the Falcons at its maximum range (2,930 vs 1660).

The Falcon does burn a lot less fuel (about 100 gph or 20% less), but I never disputed that. It's a newer design, and a smaller, lighter so less capable (in terms of range and payload) airframe. That's not to knock Dassault's engineers. They are clearly talented and built a fine airplane, but I don't think the newer smaller lighter less capapable FBW airplane being more fuel efficient and having better runway performance is a result of them having perfected their engineering and design talent by building fighters vs their arguably less aviation oriented peers (which was your original assertion).

sources:
- http://www.avbuyer.com/articles/busines ... obal-5000/
- May 2013 Business & Commercial Aviation Purchase Planning Handbook

AirbusCanada wrote:
Noteworthy is that the G500 and G600, being newer designs, seem likely to offer similar payload range capabilities, take off performance, while being dramatically faster.


G650/600/500 are clean sheet designs with much newer technology.
They should be compared to 5X, not the 7X/8X.


I look forward to the numbers when the airplanes finish their testing. It will be an interesting comparison to see what the two companies can turn out with clean sheet designs. That being said, Gulfstream has clearly gone all in speed. I would not be surprised to see payload/range traded for that. Based on the performance estimates currently available, the G500's LRC speed is the same as the 5x's max cruise (.85 mach) with the Falcon's long range cruise being .80 and the G500 max cruise at .90, although their HSC and LRC ranges are actually very similar, which means the Gulfstream will be going faster on the same distance flight (and probably burning a great bit more fuel to do it). In that regard, they are designed for different missions. Thank you for agreeing, though, that newer designs typically outperform older ones, which was my original assertion and explanation for the 7X's advantages over the Gulfstreams. Nice double standard that the Falcon is better because of better engineering, but the Gulfstreams are only better because they are newer.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos