Why Investment Castings Still Outperform 3D Metal Printing in Aerospace and Defense
Investment castings are an ideal choice when designing parts for new aerospace and defense programs. While 3D metal printing is an emerging technology capable of producing complex components in various metal alloys, utilizing 3D-printed patterns in the investment casting process remains a far more cost-effective method for manufacturing end-use parts.
Currently, standardized certification for 3D-printed metal materials does not exist, making it difficult to qualify these parts for aerospace and defense applications. While 3D-printed metal components are excellent for design validation and verification, certified production parts require the proven mechanical properties of investment castings.
By using 3D-printed patterns, manufacturers can create an investment casting prototype within a few weeks—comparable in lead time to 3D metal printing but at a significantly lower cost. A typical timeline includes:
- 1-3 days to 3D-print the pattern
- 5-7 days for investment casting
- 3-5 days for machining
This approach allows for high-quality, precision-engineered parts at a fraction of the cost of 3D-printed metal components. While 3D metal printing has its place, engineers should strongly consider the precision investment casting process when designing and producing proof-of-concept components for new programs.
Why Are Investment Castings More Cost-Effective Than 3D Metal Printing?
Investment castings are significantly less expensive than 3D-printed metal parts due to several factors:
- Raw Material Costs: Metal powders for 3D printing are expensive and have limited suppliers and material options.
- High Equipment Costs: 3D metal printers require substantial capital investment, and their operating costs—including skilled technicians—are high.
- Post-Processing Requirements: 3D-printed metal parts need specialized finishing processes to remove unsintered powder and refine surfaces, steps that are not necessary in precision casting.
As of 2025, 3D metal printing remains significantly more expensive than investment casting, whether using hard tooling or 3D-printed patterns.
How Does Investment Casting Compare to 3D Metal Printing for Complex Parts?
Key Advantages Over 3D Printing:
- 3D-printed patterns made from epoxy resin or PMMA allow for highly complex shapes.
- Investment casting creates net-shape components with similar design flexibility to 3D metal printing.
- Internal coring is more effective in casting since the ceramic material can be chemically leached out, whereas removing unsintered metal powder from 3D-printed parts is challenging.
Challenges for 3D-Printed Metal Parts in Aerospace and Defense
One of the biggest obstacles preventing widespread adoption of 3D metal printing in aerospace and defense is the lack of standardized certification for mechanical properties. Without established AMS and ASTM specifications for commonly used aerospace alloys—such as steel, stainless steel, cobalt, nickel, and aluminum—3D-printed metal parts cannot yet be widely certified for production.
While companies like GE have successfully implemented 3D metal printing by developing proprietary material specifications and investing billions in the technology, few other manufacturers have the resources to follow this path. Until the industry establishes comprehensive standards, precision investment casting remains the most time-efficient and cost-effective solution for producing high-performance metal parts.
The Future of Additive Manufacturing in Investment Casting
Emerging additive technologies are further enhancing the investment casting process. One promising innovation is 3D-printed ceramic shells, which can be pre-heated and used directly for metal casting.
Benefits of 3D-Printed Ceramic Shells:
- Eliminates the need for tooling, wax pattern creation, and ceramic dipping.
- Reduces production steps and improves lead times.
- Can withstand high-temperature pre-heating and metal pouring while allowing certification to AMS and ASTM standards.
Although the technology is still in its early stages, as scalability improves, integrating 3D-printed ceramic shells with investment casting will further reduce costs and streamline production. Unlike 3D metal printing, this approach does not require developing new material standards, as the final metal components can still be tested and certified under existing aerospace regulations.
Conclusion
While 3D metal printing continues to evolve, investment casting remains the most viable solution for producing complex, high-performance aerospace and defense components. By combining 3D-printed patterns with traditional casting methods, manufacturers can achieve cost-effective, high-quality parts with shorter lead times—all while meeting the stringent requirements of the industry.