From CAD to Cast Metal in Days, Not Months — Zero Tooling Investment | ITAR Registered | Made in USA |
Capability Statement
When original casting tooling is unavailable, a supplier has exited, or conventional tooling is difficult to justify for a small sustainment requirement, DDM Systems can evaluate a tooling-free investment-casting path from customer-supplied technical data to a finished casting.
The process does not replace engineering approval, material qualification, inspection, traceability or airworthiness requirements. It creates another manufacturing route for programs that need to investigate how a legacy casting can be sourced.
This legacy-parts resource is part of DDM Systems’ broader aircraft sustainment casting support pathway for planned obsolescence, repair-or-replace decisions, technical-data readiness, and fleet-level sourcing risk.
Legacy aircraft programs can outlive the tooling, suppliers and production assumptions behind their original cast components. A replacement requirement may involve missing wax-pattern tooling, uneconomical tooling for limited quantities, incomplete digital geometry, an obsolete source, or documentation that must be reconstructed before a casting route can be assessed.
The first question is not simply whether the part can be cast. The program must determine whether the available geometry and material definition are adequate, who controls the design, which characteristics are critical, what evidence is required for acceptance, and whether a new manufacturing route can be evaluated within the applicable approval process.
This page is for sustainment teams, engineers, procurement groups and approved suppliers evaluating whether investment casting remains a practical manufacturing option when the original production path is no longer available.
DDM Systems’ LAMP™ process produces investment-casting ceramic shell molds directly from digital geometry. This changes the mold-production route by removing the need to first manufacture dedicated wax-pattern tooling, inject and assemble wax patterns, and build the shell around that expendable pattern.
The metal part is still produced through investment casting. Alloy selection, foundry practice, heat treatment, finishing, dimensional verification, inspection and acceptance remain part of the project scope as required. The DirectPour™ workflow coordinates the reviewed requirement from digital inputs through shell production, casting and finished-casting delivery. Programs that already have a qualified casting partner can instead evaluate a ready-to-pour ceramic shell.
Send the best available technical package. A complete, controlled production dataset supports a more direct review, but an initial conversation can begin with partial information when the gaps are identified.
Separate what is authoritative from what is reference-only. For example, identify whether the CAD model controls geometry, whether the drawing contains overriding dimensions or notes, whether an existing component is approved as a dimensional reference, and whether prior process or inspection records are available. Also flag export-controlled or otherwise restricted data before transmission so the appropriate handling route can be established.
Each requirement begins with feasibility, not a promise that every legacy component can or should be reproduced through this route. The review connects the available technical definition to a proposed casting method, qualification plan, deliverable and commercial scope.
Inventory the CAD models, drawings, specifications, prior inspection records, part history and physical references that exist. Identify the controlling revision, data owner, missing information and any conflict between sources. The output of this stage is a defined technical baseline and a list of questions—not an assumption that reverse-engineered geometry is automatically approved geometry.
Review envelope size, wall sections, transitions, internal passages, core requirements, alloy, quantity, tolerances, machining allowances and surface requirements. This determines whether a directly printed shell is technically appropriate, where casting or finishing input is still needed, and whether the request should be scoped as a shell-only deliverable or a finished casting.
Map the manufacturing route to the program’s acceptance requirements. The plan may need to address material certification, process qualification, first-article requirements, dimensional inspection, nondestructive examination, traceability, special-process controls and customer hold points. The responsible authority defines what applies to the specific part.
Define the boundary of responsibility. A ready-to-pour ceramic shell is intended for a customer or foundry partner managing metal casting and downstream operations. A finished casting through DirectPour can include coordination of shell production, casting and the agreed finishing, inspection and documentation scope. The quotation should state exactly what is—and is not—included.
Establish quantity, delivery need, repeat-demand assumptions, technical deliverables, inspection documents, data handling, shipping condition and quotation exclusions. For legacy parts, schedule depends on more than mold production: unresolved geometry, material definition, source approval, qualification and customer review can control the program timeline.
Tooling-free shell production changes how the casting mold is created. It does not waive design authority, airworthiness approval, material qualification, process qualification, first-article inspection, nondestructive testing, dimensional inspection, traceability or customer-specific acceptance requirements.
It also does not establish that an existing component is an approved master, that missing internal geometry can be inferred, or that a change in manufacturing route is automatically interchangeable with the original process. Those decisions belong to the responsible engineering, contracting and airworthiness authorities.
DDM Systems evaluates the manufacturing scope and the documentation it can provide within the defined approval path. The program remains responsible for identifying the controlling requirements and authorizing production and use.
Supplier review should distinguish company credentials from part-specific approval. Procurement and engineering teams can review DDM Systems’ documented registrations, certifications, identifiers and technical capabilities in the Capability Statement.
Then evaluate the proposed project team and supply chain against the actual statement of work: data handling, alloy and foundry route, required special processes, inspection responsibilities, documentation flow, source surveillance, change control and record retention. A corporate capability statement supports that review, but it does not replace customer approval or source qualification for a particular aircraft program.
Submit the part number, best available technical package, quantity, alloy and known approval requirements. Identify the aircraft or program context only to the level permitted, and note the controlling revision and required delivery condition. The engineering team will identify information gaps, the proposed scope boundary and the next inputs needed for a feasibility review.
A lost tool, unavailable supplier or unresolved casting source can move a planned sustainment requirement into an aircraft-on-ground situation. DDM Systems can evaluate whether directly printed ceramic shells remove the need to recreate wax-pattern tooling, but an urgent schedule still depends on usable technical data, alloy and geometry review, foundry and special-process capacity, inspection planning, source approval and the program’s engineering and airworthiness requirements.
For an urgent requirement, use the dedicated AOG casting support pathway to review the initial triage inputs, scope options and feasibility limits before submitting the part package.