3D printing technology has come a long way from being an experimental tool used to create roughly textured objects from plastic resins. Here's a look at how 3D printing has made it into industrial contexts, specifically aerospace.

3D printing has been embraced by many, including hobbyists and those fabricating their own products. Until recently, however, it's been unnattractive to indurstry professionals. The improvement in 3D printing technology, access to more diverse materials, and precision manufacturing, however, have made it an ideal tool for 3D printing in the aerospace industry. In particular, several companies are now actively using 3D printing to create engines, interiors, and other parts of aircraft.

The Federal Aviation Authority has also recognized the emergence of 3D printing in the aerospace industry, preparing for the emergence of additive manufacturing by drafting the “Additive Manufacturing Strategic Roadmap”. The group working on the roadmap includes the US Air Force, the US Army, and NASA.

One of the major challenges in trying to regulate 3D printing in the aerospace industry comes from the wide variety of processes, materials, and methods being used and ensuring they all meet safety standards.

3D printing and additive manufacturing can save companies money, streamline the manufacturing process, reduce waste, and open possibilities for more innovative designs. Here are a few examples of how 3D printing is being used in the aerospace industry right now.


GE Additive New Printer and ATP Engine

GE Additive, a branch of GE Technology, has recently taken the record for the largest industrial 3D printer built. The unnamed printer is capable of printing objects 1m in diameter using a 1 kW laser and thin layers of metal powder. The printer is also scalable so that even larger objects can be printed. The company intends for the printer to be used in industrial manufacturing for aircraft, automotives, and spacecraft. 

GE has already been using 3D printing for aircraft manufacturing with the Advanced Turboprop. 


The ATP which includes 3D printed parts. Image courtesy of General Electric.


By 3D printing the ATP, the required parts for the engine were reduced from 855 to only 12. The engine will make its debut in the Cessna Denali in 2019.


Using 3D Printing to Bring Down Costs of the 787 Dreamliner

Boeing has been losing money for each 787 Dreamliner they've produced for years—nearly $30 million for each $265 million dollar plane. This is largely due to the high cost of R&D and manufacturing. The design relies on the use of titanium, as opposed to aluminum, to keep the large jet airliner light and fuel efficient.

However, in early 2017, Boeing partnered with Norsk Titanium to begin using 3D printed parts in the manufacturing process to bring costs down, saving Boeing $3 million for each 787 produced.

One of the challenges with using 3D-printed parts for aviation is that each part needs to be approved by the FAA. So far, Norsk Titanium has received FAA approval for load bearing components and hopes to receive further approval for the rest of its manufacturing process to continue to bring down the cost of each 787 produced.


An FAA approved 3D manufactured component for the 787 Dreamliner. Image courtesy of Norsk Titanium.


The cost savings from 3D printing parts for the 787 comes from the reduced cost in raw materials used, as well as a reduction in the energy requirements for manufacturing.

It's important to note that Norsk Titanium uses a proprietary printing method known as Rapid Plasma Deposition. In this process, titanium is melted into argon in a gaseous state to print its parts using a MERKE IV RPD machine. Given the expensive and custom nature of this form of 3D technology, it's unlikely that most industries will get their hands on it terribly soon without contracting Norsk Titanium, themselves.


Archinaut: 3D Printing in Space

The advantages of 3D printing even extend beyond Earthly airspace. A company named Made in Space has been making gains in space-based 3D printing with its Archinaut project. Archinaut solves one of the most limiting factors of putting large building structures in space: size, space on launch vehicles, and the cost of launching.

By using a combination of 3D printing and automated, robotic devices, large structures can be printed on demand in space using polymer-alloys. This opens up a range of possibilities for manufacturing space objects, like large telescopes.

Made in Space currently has two 3D zero-G printers on the International Space Station and plans to have their Archinaut project operational sometime in the next decade.



3D printing has been a tool of choice for hobbyists and startups to build enclosures, but it's been generally slow to appear in professional settings. This large-scale use of 3D printing in aeronautics represents a large step for this emerging technology. 

Have you worked with 3D printing in a professional setting? Share your experiences in the comments below.


Feature image courtesy of General Electric.


Learn More About:




  • The Last Inspector 2017-12-28

    Bad news for those ignoranti that fly on Boeing’s defect riddled and never complete as delivered airplanes.

    Using these printed titanium parts in structural aerospace applications is stupid and irresponsible.

    Note that Boeing’s stooge never says that this change will increase quality or safety—only that it reduces Boeing’s production cost. One of the rare Boeing spokesmen that didn’t lie to the press and investors.

    This change will actually markedly decrease the safety of Boeing QA fraud defect riddled 787. Note that the Boeing spokesman/manager says this will increase :performance” of the airplane. That means that these printed parts are much lighter than the forged/milled titanium parts that these printed parts replace. Consequently, these printed parts have much less strength than the FAA certified/tested parts they replace.

    Whichever corrupt miscreant at the FAA approved these parts replacing the known technology stronger structural parts no doubt got bribed in the present and/or will be in the future for that approval is service only of similarly corrupt Boeing management.

    Add to this fact that this additive manufacturing is not reliable or predictable as far as the molecular bond between the “printed” globs of titanium, and this is just another example of corrupt FAA personnel selling your safety to their true bosses—corrupt Boeing management—for the promise of cushy future do nothing jobs at Boeing. 

    This is yet another reason that, if it’s Boeing, you and yours shouldn’t be going.


    • Yamato71 2017-12-29

      References please.

      • mrred128 2017-12-30

        I second that. Pot-shots are easy when you are not burdened with having to cite anything.

        • RDOTTA 2017-12-31

          As a retired scientist/engineer at the Boeing Company and a part of the team which designed, built and installed most of the ultrasonic NDT equipment used in the production of the Dreamliner, I strongly object to the ‘lastboeinginspector’s comments and challenge him/her to provide verifiable sources for those statements. The 787 is very well inspected throughout and very well documented.

    • pdavis68 2018-01-05

      It’s pretty evident, based on your link, that you have a bone to pick with Boeing. But the bottom line is Boeing’s crash rate isn’t really any higher than its competitors, and at the end of the day, the argument you appear to be making is that their planes aren’t safe, but the numbers disagree:

      The worst one is the Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP series which has a rate of 1.02 with 13 million flights, but the Airbus A310 has a 1.34 with 1/3 as many flights. The rates for most of the other models are generally lower than the rates for other airbus models. The 737, which has more miles than just about any other plane also has a great safety record, especially the later models!

  • postgate 2018-01-05

    I would personally really like to see some dogbone strain data for the titanium pieces compared to the forged pieces.  In my business we have still not seen any 3D printed parts that can meet tolerances in our drawings, but if we can snap pictures on little computers that fit in our pockets now then its really just a matter of time and persistence.

    • Kiers 2018-01-05

      I think this is an interesting thread; Between @Inspector and @postgate, the issues raised are legit:  the finer the tolerances means the finer the material deposition/“printing”.  The coalescing of such fine deposition should have, in theory, LOWERED strength.

      So perhaps, there’s a tradeoff between tolerance and bond strength.?

      Also, @Postgate, what tolerances do you work with on your drawings?

  • Kiers 2018-01-05

    Now i see why GE and OEM manufacturers want 3D:  any piece breaks, you buy THE WHOLE engine again! Ka-ching$$$