Boeing 737: A historical reference for range improvements

RegGuheert · Jun 19, 2014

Whenever I speak with someone about the LEAF and BEVs in general, the topic of range is generally central to the discussion. To help others think about where BEVs are today relative to where they may be in the future, I typically will say something along the lines of:

RegGuheert said:
Boeing introduced the 737 twinjet at the end of 1967. The maximum loaded range of the base model was 1540 nmi. But, like the LEAF, the range of a commercial airliner varies with may factors, including altitude, temperature, wind speed, loading, etc. Also, like owners of the LEAF, operators of commercial airliners do NOT fly the planes to the maximum range calculated for the conditions because the penalty for running out of fuel is quite high. As a result, the original Boeing 737 was typically used on scheduled routes below about 1000 nmi.

At this point, I usually ask the following question:

RegGuheert said:
Do you fly on airplanes? If so, you may have noticed that most transcontinental flights within the U.S. are today handled by the Boeing 737 or its Airbus equivalent, the A320. Twenty years ago this was not the case. Back then, the Boeing 737 did not have the range to fly across the U.S.

Finally, I note the following:

RegGuheert said:
Later this decade, Boeing will deliver their next generation of the 737, known as the 737Max. Many observers expect that this version of the Boeing 737, as well as the Airbus A320NEO, will eventually provide service across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. The point is that after fifty years of development, the usable range of the Boeing 737 has basically tripled. Based on the history of the Boeing 737, I am quite positive that BEVs like the LEAF will experience greatly improved range as time and technology march on. I suspect it will take much less than 50 years for the range of the LEAF (or its equivalent) to triple.

Of course, the range of a jet airliner is increased in different ways than the range of a BEV, but I think it can be argued that the 737 problem is constrained in similar ways: As fuel prices increase, the customer wants BOTH better efficiency and range. The biggest difference is that the 737s range was not primarily increased by tanking more fuel, but that is what BEVs will need to do.

Anyway, just for reference, here are a few datapoints for the Boeing 737. I have included data for the smallest version of each family of 737. This data comes from Boeing, Wikipedia, (also for MAX), and The 737 Technical Site.

Code:

+-----------------------+
|   Boeing 737 Range    |
|    Over The Years     |
+-------+-------+-------+
| Model | First | Range |
|       | Deliv | (nmi) |
+-------+-------+-------+
|  -100 |  1967 |  1540 |
|  -500 |  1989 |  2400 |
|  -700 |  1997 |  3440 |
| -7Max |  2017 |  3800 |
+-------+-------+-------+

derkraut · Jun 19, 2014

Good analogy, Reg. Of course, the new B737's cost a lot more than when they were first introduced----as does most everything else.

ggodman · Jun 20, 2014

Unfortunately electric cars have been around a lot longer since the late 1800 and early 1900's

2k1Toaster · Jun 20, 2014

ggodman said:
Unfortunately electric cars have been around a lot longer since the late 1800 and early 1900's

Doesn't really count when nobody was buying them. I think anyone will agree that now is the first time they have appealed to more of the masses. My highschool physics teacher had a Honda Del Sol converted to an EV and it was the first I ever saw. Kids today see Prii everywhere and the BEVs are creeping in now too.

cgaydos · Jun 21, 2014

2k1Toaster said:
ggodman said:

Unfortunately electric cars have been around a lot longer since the late 1800 and early 1900's

Click to expand...

Doesn't really count when nobody was buying them. I think anyone will agree that now is the first time they have appealed to more of the masses. My highschool physics teacher had a Honda Del Sol converted to an EV and it was the first I ever saw. Kids today see Prii everywhere and the BEVs are creeping in now too.

Not to be picky (and it doesn't really change the point), but this is the second time they have appealed to the masses. They were very popular in the 1910s and into the early 1920s. When cars were expected to be around-town-only devices with top speeds of only 20 mph or so, and when ICEs were noisy, hard to start, unreliable, and even somewhat dangerous many people (including Henry Ford's wife) preferred electric cars. The invention of the electric starter, the improved reliability and affordability of gas engine cars, and the improving road network that allowed higher speeds and longer distances made the early EVs uncompetitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Electric

RegGuheert · Jun 21, 2014

ggodman said:
Unfortunately electric cars have been around a lot longer since the late 1800 and early 1900's

That fact in no way diminishes the point that range of electric vehicles will improve as battery technology improves.

johnrhansen · Jun 21, 2014

The next generation 737 we see today is a completely different airplane than the 737-200 that came out in the late 60s, so much so that Boeing uses a different designation code for them. The wing is totally redesigned and the rest of the structures and systems are completely different as well. The only reason it is still called a 737 is to save the airlines money by allowing the flight crews to fly both kinds of aircraft with only a simple differences training rather than certifying them for both types.

If you follow that logic and compare different types of aircraft you can see a even greater difference by going back a few more years and comparing them with the old straight jet 707s of the late 50s. They couldn't hardly go between new york and paris without stopping in newfoundland for fuel

Then look at the difference between the 377 stratoliner and the 707. Sometimes technology takes a quantum leap in a very short time. I'm hoping that is what will happen with electric cars instead of the slow incremental changes we have seen with the 737 over the years.

Flashman · Jun 21, 2014

I'll say the next generation Boeing 7 series is a different aircraft!
Search Google for these patents:
Specifically pay attention to these new features;
In Patent (US20030163232) Airliner irreversible-control anti-hijack system (granted Jan 2005)
https://www.google.com/patents/US68...a=X&ei=yvKlU_LEM-rE8QH514CoBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
note:
Support-system options include SmartCard®-interfacing, and automatic is engagement of AIRCIA™-system in event of natural-cause pilot-incapacitation, and ATI(automatic/tranquil-Infusion) which introduces tranquilizing-gas into the airliner's entire interior!

Yes, they can now knock out everyone on the plane remotely!!! Technology is a double edged sword.
These are also interesting.
(WO2012060942) Automatic control of an aircraft in the event of flight crew incapacity
(US20060032978) Method and system for controlling a hijacked aircraft

donald · Jun 21, 2014

I don't really like being one who always seems to question the merits of someone else's 'comparisons', but I don't really see what you are getting at here.

Are you trying to point out that Leaf is;
- good at what it does and makes sense but only for particular tasks, or
- EVs will get better over time, or
- you need to plan your trips with EVs, or that
- Leaf is already a good technology and if it was good enough for the airlines using the 737 then folks should be more imaginative to take on a ~100 mile EV?

.. or 'other'...?

RegGuheert · Jun 21, 2014

I would say that these three fit:

donald said:
Are you trying to point out that Leaf is;
- good at what it does and makes sense but only for particular tasks, or
- EVs will get better over time, or
- you need to plan your trips with EVs,

...but not this one:

donald said:
- Leaf is already a good technology and if it was good enough for the airlines using the 737 then folks should be more imaginative to take on a ~100 mile EV?

I am not into fitting a square peg in a round hole.

donald said:
.. or 'other'...?

Yes, there is an "other", but it is sort of related to EVs getting better over time:

- Just because no EV meets your needs today, that does not mean that they will not meet your needs at some point in the future, so keep an eye on them. Like the narrow-body twinjets which originally were only suitable for regional travel that eventually were used for the bulk of travel within the U.S. (and beyond), expect the applications for EVs will likely expand far beyond their current reaches.

The reason I like this analogy is that it covers several aspects of the characteristics of EVs and at the same time tells a story that many people may not already know, so it will typically hold their interest. It also does not put anyone on the defensive. Instead, they are able to work out for themselves the analogous characteristics as it applies to their situation.

johnrhansen · Jun 21, 2014

Just like engine technology drives big changes in aircraft, battery technology is going to be what drives the big changes in electric cars.

take for example the 787. Lots of innovations in structures and systems, and a 20 percent reduction in fuel burn. The development in the high bypass turbofan engine 40 years ago on the other hand brought about approximately a 50 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. If you compare the old 707s to the 737s

donald · Jun 22, 2014

RegGuheert said:
I would say that these three fit:

donald said:

Are you trying to point out that Leaf is;
- good at what it does and makes sense but only for particular tasks, or
- EVs will get better over time, or
- you need to plan your trips with EVs,

Click to expand...

Yes, there is an "other", but it is sort of related to EVs getting better over time:

- Just because no EV meets your needs today, that does not mean that they will not meet your needs at some point in the future

OK, but these seem fairly clear statements of fact, but most people just don't think, and simply don't agree with BEV drivers, the particular tasks EVs can do meets their needs.

So I'm just wondering whether;

RegGuheert said:
To help others think about where BEVs are today

is meant to be indicating you saying these others are unclear on BEVs capabilities or limitations?

I'm not aware that there are any ICE drivers who believe EVs won't one day meet the range performance or approach the recharge times of their current ICE. But do they really need help understanding that? I figure once that car is there for them to buy, they'll buy it. You don't have to be a 'pioneer' of cars of limited range to own a 100mile EV, in the same way you don't have to want to be a pioneer, or be persuaded to be, if you drive an ICE.

In what way do you think they need 'help' understanding BEVs? Maybe BEV owners need 'help' in understanding why the vast majority of other people haven't got their BEV yet?

Not all BEV owners are BEV enthusiasts, and likewise not all ICE owners fail to grasp what BEVs are capable of. There are no mutual exclusions I can see here that seem to warrant people needing 'help' to understand anything. Please let me know if I am missing the point?

RegGuheert · Jun 22, 2014

IMO, there is a HUGE gap between what people know, or think they know, about EVs and the reality of EVs. Most people I meet have LOTS of questions about the LEAF. In fact, many, many people I have met did not even know a production pure EV existed today! And many people who bought the LEAF thought it would be able to do things that it couldn't, often because of misinformation from the Nissan dealer who sold them the car. In fact, the people at the dealership who sold me the LEAF did not understand it because they had never owned one. They were learning about the LEAF by asking their customers. Nissan's best move was to lease LEAFs very cheaply to dealership personnel so that some experiential knowledge now exists at the dealerships.

I'll even take it one step further: The people at Nissan who oversee the design and manufacture of the LEAF don't fully understand EVs and their applications. There are a lot of reasons for this, but that is why they created the consumer advisory board. Part of the challenge Nissan faces is the shear breadth of applications for which EVs are used and how differences in application and different regions affect their customers. So they ask the members of advisory board to explain, in detail, their experiences with the LEAF or their opinions about future actions they plan to make with the product or marketing.

Many people do not buy EVs because of fear of the unknown. They have never owned one, so they don't know the pluses and minuses. They know the pluses and minuses of ICEs (and now hybrids), so they can make a judgement on them. For most people, the best way they have to learn about EVs is to ask someone they know and trust who owns one to tell them about their expeiences.

In sales parlance, selling an EV today is known as a "missionary sale".

donald · Jun 22, 2014

I'd not disagree with anything in your last post.

But I can't quite figure what that has to do with your comparison. In what way does 'helping' people understand the future likelihood of better EV range help them make decisions about the reality of EVs now?

RegGuheert · Jun 22, 2014

donald said:
But I can't quite figure what that has to do with your comparison. In what way does 'helping' people understand the future likelihood of better EV range help them make decisions about the reality of EVs now?

I think many (most?) people tend to look at things using rather "static" thinking, as in: "I looked at EVs once and they don't meet my needs." This reference tells them to check in later and see how things stand at that point.

Also, I find that many people feel like EV owners will think they made the wrong choice just because they did not purchase an EV (and some EV owners DO think this). Reference stories avoid a lot of that type of baggage because they are neutral on the subject.

I find the 737 story to be particularly interesting because of the many parallels that can be drawn.

I'm a big believer that EVs cross a significant threshold at around 125 miles of EPA range. At that point nearly all daytime outings are well-covered with spare for environmental effects and degradation.

johnrhansen · Jun 22, 2014

As far as usability, the ice car wins hands down, there is no comparison. I don't think electric cars can ever even approach it. Even a Tesla. No matter what, electric car owners have to deal with more headaches in getting from point a to point b. I deal with the headaches because I care about the environment, I want to save money, and I like how quiet and smooth the car is. Most people don't care about the first 2 things, and ice cars can get pretty close to the smoothness and quiet of my car.

The only way people will adopt these cars en masse is if they are forced to. By super high gas prices or taxes, or just the non availability of ice cars. I think that is the way to go. Its just too hard on the environment burning petroleum.

donald · Jun 22, 2014

johnrhansen said:
I deal with the headaches because I care about the environment, I want to save money, and...

Well, it might be saving you money but overall EVs are more costly than ICE at the moment. Those with a pure free-market attitude to things would point out that it's the Gov subsidies and tax on fuel that might make EVs look cheaper (I am still wondering about the long-term costs of battery performance, though) but that's only a cheapness to you rather than the economy. Someone else is paying, and eventually the Gov will stop gifting you tax breaks and other direct or indirect privileges.

It may equally be argued that cost is simply a function of resources and fuel/energy, and as EVs cost more so it is implied they have more embedded carbon in them. There are studies showing that BEVs do reduce pollution in the 0-8yr term, but if there is a battery swap mid-life then they are overall worse polluters than a small petrol hybrid.

It's back to the battery technology question raised in the first post. But it might equally be plausible that en-route charging is made viable in the same time frame as improved battery tech, and if so the batteries could be made smaller in capacity than larger.

To my thinking, it is a flawed argument to look at the trajectory of growth of other technologies. In 100 years aeroengines have improved in pretty much every metric by three or four orders of magnitude. However, in 150 years Li-ion has not even clawed its way clear of one single OOM above lead-acid technology, and that is certainly not for lack of competitive interest and consumer demand.

There are fundamental limitations on battery chemistry that rely on substances changing their oxidation state. You are never going to be better than around 1 Ah per gramme of substance, and any sensible solution can manage 10g per Ah. At 4V per cell, Li is pretty much optimised for energy density. Clever-er packaging and electrolyte combinations may aid reliability when you push high specific power, and may improve specific energy a couple of times, but there are no OOM improvements to be had, unlike aerospace engines.

RegGuheert · Jun 22, 2014

donald said:
Well, it might be saving you money but overall EVs are more costly than ICE at the moment.

They are certainly more costly to purchase, but where I live, you save money every mile you drive it. Specifically, at 30 MPG for the ICE and 4 mi/kWh for the LEAF, we save $0.10/mile. In other words, the $30,000 LEAF S (unsubsidized) is cheaper than a $25,000 ICE after 50,000 miles and cheaper than a $20,000 ICE after 100,000 miles. Of course, that is at the current price for gasoline, which will likely go up and shorten the number of miles before break-even. PV electricity is capped below about $0.05/kWh. I'm confident that the battery in the 2015 LEAF will last over 200,000 miles in my application in my climate, so that should not be an issue in this calculation.

Where I live, I pay an additional tax of $150/year for the privilege to drive an EV. That tax is designed to have EV drivers pay the equivalent of the ICE gasoline tax. This will slightly offset the number of miles I need to drive to break even, depending on how many miles I drive each year.

Sure, the calculation would reverse if the LEAF were to be wrecked before the break-even point. Fortunately, my wife and I have never totaled any vehicle in over 25 years. Let's hope our fortune continues.

donald said:
It may equally be argued that cost is simply a function of resources and fuel/energy,...

This is my thesis, as well. So the LEAF is a lower-energy solution, as well, after the break-even point.

But there is another significant difference: My EV is refueled using renewable energy produced on my roof. This allows me to reduce my dependence on fuels which have an unknown future cost are mostly imported from foreign countries and hopefully it allows our government to have fewer "interests" in those countries.

donald said:
To my thinking, it is a flawed argument to look at the trajectory of growth of other technologies.

Then you shouldn't use that analogy when you discuss EVs with others. I find it to be an excellent talking point that people can easily relate to.

donald said:
However, in 150 years Li-ion has not even clawed its way clear of one single OOM above lead-acid technology, and that is certainly not for lack of competitive interest and consumer demand.

The first secondary Li-ion battery was demonstrated only 35 years ago (not 150 years ago) and they have already gone far beyond lead-acid in nearly every metric.

donald said:
There are fundamental limitations on battery chemistry that rely on substances changing their oxidation state. You are never going to be better than around 1 Ah per gramme of substance, and any sensible solution can manage 10g per Ah. At 4V per cell, Li is pretty much optimised for energy density. Clever-er packaging and electrolyte combinations may aid reliability when you push high specific power, and may improve specific energy a couple of times, but there are no OOM improvements to be had, unlike aerospace engines.

I don't share your pessimism in the future of EV battery technology. There is one thing I have found to be axiomatic about nearly all technology development: Virtually every technology barrier which has ever been imagined has eventually been overcome.

donald · Jun 22, 2014

RegGuheert said:
donald said:

However, in 150 years Li-ion has not even clawed its way clear of one single OOM above lead-acid technology, and that is certainly not for lack of competitive interest and consumer demand.

Click to expand...

The first secondary Li-ion battery was demonstrated only 35 years ago (not 150 years ago) and they have already gone far beyond lead-acid in nearly every metric.

Maybe I did not express myself well. My point is that the first secondary battery was lead acid, and the best, most suitable battery now for EVs is less than 10 times better than a battery invented 150 years ago. Aeroengines are 1,000's times better, in less time and with lower volumes of manufacture and fewer direct consumers of the product (usually the best stimuli for technology improvements).

donald said:
RegGuheert said:

I don't share your pessimism in the future of EV battery technology.

Click to expand...

It is not pessimism. It is facing up to the laws of physics. If we are talking a battery using the change of oxidation value of a metal in a closed, cyclic and rechargeable system, then you will hit a fundamental limit and, basically, we are virtually there already. There are savings to be made in the masses of the electrodes, current collectors and electrolytes, plus packaging, but these are tweaks, nothing OOM to be found there, and as they are tweaked then you also begin to end up with trade-offs in thermal management, stability and safety, again which we are virtually there already. Some very gradual improvements as manufacturing gets a little smarter about cutting off the excess mass in the battery, more reliable with more stable electrolytes, and lower costs. But basically if you want a long range car, you put more batteries in, just as Tesla has done.

Now, if you want to tell me that we should hold our hats as some technology that is not a battery as we know it sweeps in, that does not use the same principles of reversible oxidation state changes, then, hey, yeah, roll it on. Aero got their jet turbine technology, and was so new that people didn't even recognise it when the British Gov said Whittle's patent was of no interest and so it was published (much to the German's interest - doh!). Anyhow, if you're right that battery tech can follow that sort of quantum jump, then maybe, but I'm struggling to see it and we've had 150 years to find a replacement to Pb/PbO/SO4. Yes, we have several now, but all well within a factor of 10 of Pb/SO4 which is still going strong.

I'd love to see a new tech treble the range of current EV batteries. I'm just not holding my breath for it!!!

RegGuheert · Jun 22, 2014

donald said:
Aeroengines are 1,000's times better, in less time and with lower volumes of manufacture and fewer direct consumers of the product (usually the best stimuli for technology improvements).

Efficiency of commercial jet engines has historically (over the past 50 years) improved at a rate of 1%/year. Capacity of Li-ion batteries has been improving at a historical rate of 8%/year.

Boeing 737: A historical reference for range improvements

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!