Introducing the Gizmag Store

Volocopter flies past crowdfunding goal

By

December 8, 2013

E-volo's Volocopter takes to the air for the first time last month

E-volo's Volocopter takes to the air for the first time last month

The maiden flight of e-volo's 18-rotor Volocopter electric aircraft prototype last month seems to have impressed quite a few people. The company is claiming a European crowdfunding record after raising €1.2 million (US$1.64 million) in under four days.

The fundraising effort was launched on German crowdfunding platform Seedmatch, which differs from better-known platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo in that it lets people invest in startup companies rather than simply pledge funds to essentially pre-order a particular product.

The Seedmatch campaign passed the €500,000 (US$685,000) mark in just two and a half hours, on the way to a total of €1.2 million in three days, nine hours and 52 minutes. Some 750 investors committed between €250 and €10,000 (US$340 and $13,700).

“The raised money will now serve to optimize the first prototype of the VC200 and, as part of the testing scheme, conclude a comprehensive test flight program for this new aviation category," says e-volo Managing Director Alexander Zosel. "After that, we will build a weight-optimized prototype of the VC200 near series production conditions and finalize type-certification and mold construction for series production."

Source: E-volo

About the Author
Darren Quick Darren's love of technology started in primary school with a Nintendo Game & Watch Donkey Kong (still functioning) and a Commodore VIC 20 computer (not still functioning). In high school he upgraded to a 286 PC, and he's been following Moore's law ever since. This love of technology continued through a number of university courses and crappy jobs until 2008, when his interests found a home at Gizmag.   All articles by Darren Quick
16 Comments

How much weight can the e-volo lift? The demonstration didn't have anybody or anything on board (I think).

I wonder if it has enough lift to replace the battery banks with an engine/generator/fuel tank for improved range. Essentially that's what a diesel-electric locomotive is: an engine driving a generator that powers the wheels, but a similar system could power all those rotors instead.

Actually there's something even cooler than that, it's called a gas turbine electric locomotive (GTEL). A turbine engine has a terrific power-to-weight ratio, I wonder how airworthy that would be.

Grunchy
8th December, 2013 @ 11:38 pm PST

Congratulations on rapid conquest of funds.

I imagine the short period in which this happened is due to all Volocopter staff and great technological and environmental advances presented in this product.

Surely, the company will raise and fly higher, using electric motors, in a shipping area, where it is known that spending and the consumption with fuels is immense.

Sergius
9th December, 2013 @ 03:41 am PST

This method of lift does work but it creates 2 problems. One motor will always weigh less than 18 motors. The other problem is forward speed. All that connecting frame work is not conducive to high speed.

"Grunchy" is correct about a hybrid system. Environmentalist should get behind bio fuel jet hybrids. Jet fuel is the most polluting fuel in air travel and bio fuel is actually non polluting.

We are currently developing a light weight motor that uses no steel or copper that is water cooled to use in the Hydro XE.

donwine
9th December, 2013 @ 08:54 am PST

I do composites and EV's and vertical flight and it's very unlikely this can be made light enough to carry a useful load a useful distance under batteries.

Don't see any mention of the drag of the connecting structures at speed which will be quite high.

Small dia rotors are NOT eff nor are the structures to hold them together. 2 things you can't have in an EV VTOL if you want reasonable range, payload. Basic physics.

Now had it been 2 counter rotating rotors of 60% dia the example craft dia would weight 50% of it but have reasonable range, payload, easily 100% more than the example.

A nice 12'dia twin rotor single person unit could be cost effective, $15k with a 50 mile range for commuting, etc is likely the sweet spot for now.

jerryd
9th December, 2013 @ 10:44 am PST

Might package a ballistic chute on top of a central mast as there will be no autorotation for an emergency descent.

b2p
9th December, 2013 @ 11:02 am PST

50 mile range.. are you nuts... I would pay 15 or 20k to have a range of 50 miles... maybe 500 miles is more like it. but not 50 miles, not a sweet spot...

S Michael
9th December, 2013 @ 07:01 pm PST

@ donwine

Jet fuel is the most polluting fuel in air travel. Really? Avgas still has lead.

Slowburn
9th December, 2013 @ 10:11 pm PST

Sorry "Slowburn" - I didn't know the scientist were wrong!

"Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded.

Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified.

Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide PER PASSENGER. That's about what an SUV generates in a month."

donwine
10th December, 2013 @ 05:33 am PST

"Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded.

Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified.

Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide PER PASSENGER. That's about what an SUV generates in a month."

donwine
10th December, 2013 @ 08:58 am PST

@ donwine, Could you post some links to the studies you're quoting? The quote "On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide PER PASSENGER." seems wrong given that the fuel burn per passenger is less than that.

Dennis Roberts
10th December, 2013 @ 04:02 pm PST

"Dennis"

I did not intend to post it twice. The article was in the USA Today.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm

There are many sources about the pollution of jet fuel at high altitudes. The sad note is that many do not care as long as they can travel at any cost.

donwine
10th December, 2013 @ 06:09 pm PST

@ donwine

Consider that even the IPCC has admitted that the earth as stopped warming despite C02 levels continuing to rise.

Slowburn
11th December, 2013 @ 12:56 am PST

@ donwine, Thanks for the link. You're quote is directly from the 2006 USAtoday article, but I still can't find any science to back up the assertion. My calculations show about 182 lbs of jetA fuel burned per person on the 1631 mile trip from New York-to-Denver in a 747. It's hard to believe that 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide can be created by burning 182 pounds of fuel. (calculation based on 33.5 lbs fuel burned per mile on 747 with 300 passengers) http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm

Dennis Roberts
11th December, 2013 @ 02:45 pm PST

"Global warming" or the amounts of pollution are not the issue. Apathy and news spinning are confusing and counter productive. The bottom line is, polluters only care about making profits and those who want a clean planet are helpless to do much about it. As for me, I consider the earth as home and I will never condone the abuse of it. If the earth can be ruined, what will stop the polluters from ruining other planets?

donwine
11th December, 2013 @ 07:38 pm PST

@ donwine, I agree with you, but quoting bad science is best left to the 'right wing nut jobs'.

Dennis Roberts
12th December, 2013 @ 11:40 am PST

It is not bad science. Check out the chemistry and math. About 19lbs of CO2 per US Gallon of jet fuel burned.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091210130723AAT8MyR

Ray McCrea
19th December, 2013 @ 10:03 pm PST
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles

Just enter your friends and your email address into the form below

For multiple addresses, separate each with a comma




Privacy is safe with us because we have a strict privacy policy.

Looking for something? Search our 26,540 articles