Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Charlie, thanks for the info and translation.
These analysts are even more negative than investor who is more negative than me. Absent new joiners, one of us 3 will be more right and if its investor or me we should get the analysts pay check. LOL. I've given my reasons for thinking we should have deliveries at least equal to the 16 4q deliveries and don't know why others offer such low q1 delivery numbers given our backlog. And while sales are important, its deliveries that get booked into revenue. Moreover, arcam has added capacity and trained people since prior quarters and I do not think that the same people that handle the mfg of printers handle the installation and set up of machines but may be wrong
We shall see tomorrow. Any predictions of your own?????
OK Investor, we shall know soon whose analysis was closest.
But remember you cannot just rely on past quarters. 3d demand is expanding, we never had 27 in backlog before, we just completed a doubling of capacity and arcam already proved it can deliver at least 16 machines before the expansion was completed and arcam had additional time to hire and train people. i.e. last quarter. So with the backlog and capacity increase, I would expect at least 16 delivered as we did in the 4q. Moreover, I would not think the same people build the systems as install them but I could be wrong. Moreover q1 is not always our worst. Take a look at q2 historically.
Anyway, we both have given our reasoning and analysis and we will find out tomorrow who is right. I will be the first to do a mea culpa if i'm the one wrong. BUt just like I was glad you were righter on the deliveries and me on the revenue last time because it represented better performance for arcam, this time I hope I;m right as i'm more optimistic and hope the pps goes up accordingly.
Investor, thanks for your ER response. Lets see how many other inputs we get.
But wow, do we conflict in our expectations. One of us will have a big mea culpa to offer.
First, I totally agree with you that the 3d sector is maturing and will expand as manufacturing begins. I also hope you are right re the guidance but I've been disappointed in rene's close mouthness the last few CCs. And yes, I will be on the CC baring a factor x problem.
But on the ER, I do not understand your reasoning. We are relatively close on sales, your 12 vs my 14, with me being more optimistic this time. That to me is a wash and without announcements the prediction is by brute force. But as we both agree that demand for 3d is expanding, I;m a little surprised that you don't think we will get a 40% increase or 4 more printers. But, its an open question and we will see.
But I have a real problem with your delivery estimate unless you think arcam is capacity limited which I don't given the recent doubling of capacity. Our revenue and backlog estimates all stem from our significant difference is deliveries. One of us will be much righter than the other and we shall see.
You estimate only 13 deliveries. WHY?????
Deliveries are governed by capacity and backlog. You cannot dliver what is not sold. We had 27 in backlog going into this quarter, 17 excluding the 10 from GE which arcam stated would be partially delayed, some into 2017. But the remaning 17 should all be deliverable unless a customer also asked for delay. But since that did not happen last quarter, I will assume that all 17 were deliverable. Last quarter there were also 2 from the existing quarter that got delivered as rene says in many cases there is less than a quarter turnaround given our expanded capacity and production skills.
So that means that all 17 non GE backlog should be deliverable. RIGHT??? Arcam demonstrated the ability to deliver at least 16 based on last quarter's deliveries so why restrict deliveries to 13. I see no reason for such restricted deliveries. And comparisons with prior quarters is moot since arcam didn't have the backlog to support more deliveries in prior quarters.
So would think that we would have at least the 16 printers delivered that we had in last quarter. Moreover, because of increased capacity and new hires, think we could produce and deliver more than the 16. So again why limit it to 13. I also think that given the estimate of 2 printers from 1q earnings and one or 2 from the ge order for reasons I specified in my original post, it would not be unreasonable to expect deliveries of 20 or 21 (2 from q1 sales and 1/2 from the GE order in addition to the 17 in backlog)
I also take umbrage with your revenue forecast, only 146. How can you possibly estimate such a low figure with the expansion of subsidiary sales as well as deliveries, unless its based on your low delivery estimate.
But with deliveries of 16 printers (I think that would be a minimum given our backlog)and expansion in subsidiary revenue, how can we not beat 4q revenue of 176 which involved 16 printer deliveries. Even in the 2nd quarter, with a lot less subsidiary capacity and deliveries of 14 printers we had 150.6 in revenue much greater than your 146 estimate.
Anyway we shall see in a few days. If I;m wrong i'll give you a mea culpa but this time since im more optimistic than you, I hope I am right and the pps will rise accordingly. Hope you are also right on the guidance as we need some information.
Again thanks for participating. I don't predict earnings as there are two many factors but agree that rd will be increased as will personnel costs But cap ex and capacity usage should be better. I stand by my original predictions Hope others add their 2 cents. Hope you join me on the CC
FOURTH QUARTER EARNINGS PREDICTIONS
As promised here is my 3rd consecutive Earnings OER) predictions. Was almost exact on for 3q and real close here for 4th quarter. Right on re deliveries as none were held up by customers from existing backlog, closest to revenue and revenue growth with my prediction of 180 vs 176 actual and investors 160 but conservative on sales with my 25, investors 28 and actual of 29. I only recall investors predictions and hope I remembered correctly. If not, or any one else contributed which I missed, sorry and please update us. If any one is interested, my prediction were set forth in post #2933. I invite investor and all others to participate as the ER is coming out this week and it is an interesting analytical exercise which is directly related to our arcam. But please include your insight, analysis and reasoning. Hope we can have an interesting discussion. Notice that all those posts last time that our sales would be poor because of no announcements are missing as are the overly optimistic ones that we would have 80 sales last year.
Now here re my predictions with some general and specific analysis.
We had no announcements in q1, so am predicting totally blind but will offer my reasoning. Generally, I expect arcam to continue executing well. Cap ex will be down as the expansion projects are ending, r and d will be up as usual and I expect the subsidiaries to report good revenue, especially apc as it expanded from 3 to 8 atomizers Don't know how the printer sales are developing, highest margin, lowest, or a mix
but expect margins to improve as capacity is better utilized with our excellent backlog.
Here are my predictions:
[/[color=red][color=red][/color][/color]b]SALES: With no announcemengs, this will be by brute force. Even with the big GE order last quarter, it obvious that implant and airspace demand is increasing as production is nearing. Therefore, I think an increase of 4 printer or 40 percent, y/y is reasonable. I predict that we sold 14 printers last quarter, up from 10 a year earlier. That is a 40% sales increase which in my opinion is reasonable. Especially given the lack of any bulk orders.
[/[color=red][color=red][/color][/color]b]DELIVERIES: We had a backlog of 27 going into q1, 10 of which were from GE which will not be all delivered in the next quarter. That left 17 non GE printers which I expect were all delivered like they were last quarter Like last time, I also expect 2 from q1 sales might also have been delivered. That makes for a delivery total of 19. I also think GE would have taken delivery of 1 or 2 of its 10 to aid in production, experimentation of new parts and production techniques as engine production and testing of the 9x increase. Plus there might be experimentation in new and additional parts. So lets say 2 of the 10 were delivered from the GE order.
This make for a delivery total of 20 or 21 printers.
[/ BACKLOGb] Given the above, I predict a backlog going into q2 of20 printers. This consists of the 12 sales from q1 that weren't delivered and the remaining 8 from the ge order. Obviously the GE analysis is simply a guess.
REVENUE Printer sales don't matter here. Its revenue sales from the subsidiaries and the number of printers delivered. I respect significant improvement in the revenue of the subsidiaries as well as a reasonable improvement in printer sales, q/q. So let say revenue will be 230 or over a doubling of revenue q/q.
The above may even be conservative as I do expect subsidiary revenue and printer sales to increase as both medical and aerospace sector are moving towards production. We shall see but the pps is starting to finally improve which might be selecting something. Able to sell a little of my hot shaes left over from q3 ER and getting a double is nice. BUt with the low volume must sell sparingly. BUt my large original investment shares are untouchable.
Will appreciate any other analysis or insight here. Investor, I was glad the sales numbers the last quarter were closere to yours, 29 vs 25 and your 28 predicted was great. Lets see how we do this time and hope the pps keeps rising. Now lets see the actual results and how well we did. Hope I can maintain my record.
Thanks a lot investor. I was mainly referencing the sales since the policy change when every sale was no longer reported. But your summary was excellent as I would have had no access to some of those earlier records and have no idea where you got them. My reference point, although I did not write them down is from 2013 on when I bought into arcam.
But your info was excellent, although many question marks such as the repeat customers and ones who did not disclose their names.
One of the big observations I made was the number of printers sold to universities and other research purposes. I have had a disagreement with some over whether arcam has 3 legs or 4, with the 4th leg being the rd and experimental printers. Your numbers support my position, at least in the past, that arcam does indeed have 4 legs as the number of printers sold for research and experiment are substantial and important as these printers can yield new applications for ebm and hence support more printer sales.
I also notice that none of the announced printers were sold to alcoa or rti or at least named as such. Many other printers may also be near use for production and other significant purposes.
Tonight or tomorrow I will post my ER expectations as I have done for the past 2 ERs. Hope you join like last time. I was almost on all fours for the 3rd quarter ER and we were awful close on the last ER. I got closer on the revenue and you on the printer sales although glad you were closer as I liked your 18 vs my 15 compared to the 19 actual non GE orders Also like that I was closer on revenue only missing it by 2 if I recall.
This quarter it will be very hard as there have been no announced sales or any other info for that matter. So it will be pure analysis and guessitmate but an interesting exercise. The backlog number should bode well for deliveries except for the fact that 10 of those are the GE order which will not be automatically delivered in the next quarter, if any. I will give my guessitmate in my ER post.
Overall I wish there would be additional announced confirmed volume uses for EbM. But that will come.
Investor, how do you track arcam's customers?. Since the policy was changed, unless it is a certain dollar amount there is no disclosure. I personally wish I knew who all the buyers are so I can track the research printer buys as well as all the customers, in both medical and aviation. The lack of info is frustrating. But it does look like Alcoa is printing some EBM parts and would be interesting to know how many printers it has, for how many part and how many it might need in the near future. In mentioning Alcoa, I include its sub rti.
On another note its getting time to focus on the upcoming ER and try to do as well as we did again in predicting the numbers.
Thanks for the info Charlie. Refusing to have real arcam specific info, that arcam actually makes multiple part on this engine. Rather than generic posts, posts on castings or posts on just laser.
Now we can root for the electron rocket.
Does anyone know how many EBM parts are involved in one engine and how many printers are being used or may be needed?????
This should show other engine makers that ebm can be used making a lot more parts than just blades. Good positive info specific to arcam
Good question Investorhub, but bet no one knows. First no EBM blades have been in service yet so no data Second, any data on the existing blades are not applicable as they are not ebm blades and the ebm 3d printed blades are supposed to be more durable.
So there is no data yet on the EBM durability as they have not been tested and the old data is moot. But I like your numbers and assuming the EBM blades are approved for all engines, any replacements will be beneficial to arcam.
Was just exposed to a new concept which you tech guys may already be fully aware of. That concept/term was FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval or PMA. The concept, applicable to replacement and modified parts helped me understand the full FAA approval process. While I was not able to glean the time period involved, some posters have indicated that approval for a crucial new part may take 2 years.
But the core provisions that I was interested in was the concept that two different FAA entities are involved in the part approval process and both take a long time and must be completed before a part can fly. There is also an ongoing requirement, once approval to produce is obtained, for on going quality control data.
So as relevant here, it is clear that whether initial blades or replacement/modified blades, the arcam blades must have undergone both approval processes. THe design must be approved by the FAA to fly on the GE engines and the facility must be approved by another FAA entity to insure that the design approved part is quality built. These two approval processes, especially with a new technology as 3d, must involve a huge time commitment.
Couple of questions for those in the know.
1. Does anyone know where the arcam blades are at in the approval process, both design and facility. Completed, almost completed?????
2. Would approval of arcam blades apply to all engines? Need approval for each separate engine??? Or will arcam need to get approval for blades for each separate application???
3. I assume that the AVIO 3d printer facilities are already FAA approved. Right? Then will expansion of the AVIO facility with new printers of the same model require any additional approval or be subsumed in the regular FAA facility approval process?? would approval be needed if avio upgraded to a new arcam printer?????
4. Re the ongoing quality process, would software such as the Sigma Printrite system materially help the process, time, quality and cost perspectives. Sigma is one of my spec dice throws and would enjoy seeing some positive cost worthy applications for that software which will determine if the company is successful or not.
It would seem to me that the FAA approval process, presumably started around August 14, 2014 when the new blade technology was first announced by Avio is completed or near completion. I hope that approval will apply to all engines. I assume the same with the avio facilities. That they are, or nearly, FAA certified and that adding additional printers will not require approval. Just subject to the regular ongoing facility inspections. Therefore, I suspect that arcam blades are essentially ready to go for any engine which elects them. But that is speculation on my part. Any one know???
But the negative point is that as research and experimentation yields additional sources for EBM parts, those parts, and need for Arcam printers, will be delayed as each part goes through the extensive FAA dual approval process.
we shall see. The jury is still out but I am optimistic even if its taking longer than I expected for the manufacturing flood gates to open.
Any comments, suggestions, disagreements on the above??? I admit the technological aspects of the 3d printing process and Faa approval process is beyond me.
Your right. Remember all those articles back in August 2014 when the Avio new blade process was first announced They all suggested that ebm blades would be on all GE engines immediately and that a new technological revolution was beginning. It is happening, but now 1.5 years later we still are waiting for the big impact. Hype can be frustrating to investors
Investor agree that this and other information sources are offering a lot of good news. We have Charlie's articles that arcam blades are expanding on other GE engines, both initial and replacement contra to the nay sayers. We have a lot of articles illustrating the various research and experimentation projects looking into EBM parts. Some if not many of these will bear fruit. It is overall very good news. I am amused by some posts that opine that very few machines will be needed. These conclusions are shouted without the poster knowing how many blades are produced by one machine, during what time interval, whether there is stacking involved etc. Also made before production even begins. The articles clearly show that leap is not in production yet, the nx and other engines are still being tested and evaluated and a lot of the real production will not be started into well in the future. Given Renes statement that turnaround from order to delivery is about 3 months, why buy a lot of printers now to simply be idle till production ramps up. Also by waiting, the buyer may get the advantage of technology advances. Bottom line we just don't know when or how many printers will be required because we don't know what they can produce or when the production will be needed. But to simply shout that not many printers will be needed at this juncture is the perfect example of shouting conclusions based on no foundation.
Re the nozzles, I agree that a lot of parts will eventually be suitable for EBM, but given the heat and specs involved are nozzles a candidate. Thought some poster with more tech knowledge than I indicated that nozzles because of their use were not EBM compatable. Is that right or wrong??/ But there are a lot of other arts for EbM as Rene stated.
All good for arcam, only question is how well and when. But with both Arcam and the buyers keeping all information closely held for competitive reasons, we don't know till it happens. Just like some posters were saying that there would be no GE bulk order because of the delay, then we woke and it happened, then suddenly the same posters who were saying it would not happen were saying we would be selling thousands of machines and now say we will sell little. More examples of false or unjustified conclusions based on no information
Bottom line, as i've said before, we just don't know but the trends are looking good.
Good point Investorhub. While I follow the AM sector closely, and arcam, ddd and GE in particular, I tend to forget that Morris was also involved with EBM and thus the head of Morris, which is GEs AM guru, is knowledgeable in and a supporter of EBM. While laser may compose more of GE's focus, you are right that Morris and GE, through Avio, are very involved with EBM as well. We talk like AM is old and a set technology. That mfg has been going on for years. We forget that the first AM part was certified by the FAA late last year, that most of the new engines have not entered production yet and that their configuration and designs are still being set both for initial production was hasn't begun yet despite the posts of sum and for replacement parts in the future. Heck I've heard some rumors that the EBM blades might even find a place for replacement 90 engines.
Thanks for reminding us of the Morris EBM connection. It is interesting that GE bought both Morris and Avio about the same time. Shows their impending interest in AM generally and EBM in particular. Remember those articles last year where GE specifically stated that it liked EBM and that EBM would be on its engines Some tend to forget that and became depressed over the time it took for GE to place its first bulk order.
I agree with a later post of yours, this year and next should be very good years as the AM mfg segment develops and ebm proves its case.
Charlie, remember that Trader's conclusions are generally flawed as based on inclusive data. Like he keeps saying that the Leap is in production when we all know it is not Yes some engines are being produced for testing but he rebutted one of my posts of non production on the arcam board by stating that a whole 30 had been produced and that equated to the volume production I was discussing for the future. . The leap is not in volume production yet and anything can happen with the initial engines being produced and for replacement blades down the road. Moreover, only some of the blades per engine will be EBM produced I have no idea how many blades are produced by one machine in any period of time. Trader and others assume they know and shout their conclusions But we don't know and its obvious that both arcam and GE and all the buyers are very quiet about such competitive info.
The bottom line per your posts, are that EBM will produce some, not all, of the blades on the 9x, some not all of the nx blades, both initial and replacement and it is likely contrary to all those trader posts that ebm will also be involved with the LEAP and that train has not left the station. As Rene stated no decision has been made.
Bottom line, its looking good compared to the naysayers that arcam will have significant involvement in GE engine blades as well as other parts that we don't even know about yet I also agree with that poster who opined that AM and Arcam may well become involved in the auto sector.
What I've been saying for a long time is that none of these areas are zero sum games and that ebm will be involved in part in many oif these initiatives. Time will tell how many parts EBM will be involved in and the timing thereof. Over all, contra to the nay sayers, i'm very positive in arcam's future at least sort term until AM manufacturing becomes a commodity which is years in the future as the AM mfg revolution is just beginning.
Agree, EBM will have a mfg place, clearly not design, on the 9x and nx and eventually perhaps on the Leap contra to the naysayers. In my opinion very positive news. Now we just need these innovations and others to ramp up.
Trader, your comment does not make sense unless I've totally misread Charlie's post on the engines. You say its unclear whether the EBM and Avio role will be just design or mfg. You also mention that some blades will be fabricated. Of course. Everyone admits that ebm will not produce all blades. So the mere fact that you read that some blades will be fabricated, use composites or other technologies does not mean than NONE will be EBM produced. It is not a zero sum game. Multiple technologies and technologies may well be used. The key is that EBM will get enough to keep arcam busy. Right??
But Trader, the last paragraph of the post, most highlighted in red, clearly says that EBM will mfg 2 blades on the 9x AND will MFG original and replacement blades on the nx. Again, readers correct me if i'm wrong, but what is confusing about the statement that arcam will MFG blades on the 9x and nx. Where is design mentioned in that last para I rest my case.
Charlie, thanks for the post. It confirms what I've been saying that composites are not leapfrogging EBM and that EBM will have a place on most if not all of the GE engines. And contrary to some, the leap train has not left the station. Ebm may be on some of the leap initial blades as production ramps up and even more possible on the replacement blades. The jury is still out but it looks like ??
In this context, I reiterate that leap volume production as not begun yet as some have posted. The fact that 30 or some more are made for testing and development purposes does not equate to the volume manufacturing anticipated when real leap production for commercialization begins which all sources confirm will NOT happen till mid this year. Anyone disagree??
We shall see how the EBM usage on the blades and other parts play out throughout the aviation sector. My conclusion is that it will involve a variety of methodologies and technologies and that the jury is still out on the final configurations but I am optimistic. The real question is how many EBM parts will be used and the timing of consequent production.
Trader, cannot agree with your volume comment on ADRs. For us who hold the ADRs, of course volume and consequent pps movement is relevant as it determines how well our investment is doing. For ADR holders, the volume and pps action of the ADr is the most relevant. Of course, the trading of papa arcam is relevant but to be honest if I had a choice, and it had to be either/or, i'd rather the ADR have high volume and go up then the Swedish stock. I root for both, but the ADR is what lines my pocket and thus is most relevant. Like many of your posts, your conclusions just do not make sense.
If, i'm reading your post correctly, that sounds like we will have 2 blades on the 9x and will have a place on the nx, both initial and replacement blades. Now for a comparable announcement on the Leap and 90. Might put to rest all those conclusions that Arcam will only produce 9x blades. Just a matter of time. Now to wait for ebm parts beyond just blades and a speedup in timing.
Given that GE is moving toward AM, and considering the advantages of laser vs ebm, and Renes obvious statement that some parts are better with laser, some ebm and some a wash, any speculation to what other aviation parts might be developed for EBM?. I ask that of the tech savy guys as my expertise falls far short of that necessary to answer the question. I only know that the trend is towards AM and that EBM will have a significant place.
Agree with the GE statements and as I've and many media sources have shown, its coming as AM has a lot of advantages over traditional sources of manufacturing. The only questions are EBM vs Laser and the timing. GE has already stated it likes EBM and EBM will have a place in its future.
Given all the news i'm hearing, and Rene's pronouncements and hints, I have no doubt that EBM will get its fair share but not all of the potential new part making responsibilities. And arcam with it state of the art machines, and personnel to get the most out of them, will have a nice place in that future. I've put my money where my mouth is. Now to get some results. I note we are almost at the end of another quarter and we have no idea where the machine sales are for this quarter nor deliveries except a lot of the GE orders will not be delivered this quarter. Per usual, i'll give my ER estimate soon and hope others will follow. We were pretty close last ER.
One last comment. Just read a Yahoo article on Xone's ER. It was so positive given that xone beat the estimates this time after 2 prior misses and that it had such a large revenue increase, a WHOLE 2.5% q/q. No compare that with arcam that has been profitable every quarter, has had good ERs ever quarter and has revenue grown, y/y of 70%ish. And arcam was not even mentioned in the article. That is why arcam's volume and pps is not performing like it should. No exposure and no acknowledgement of how well its doing. Wow xone got a 2.5% revenue growth. Such an achievement. LOL
That's exactly my point. Finding those with the technical skills set, the experience and the dual language proficiency is the challenge. That is all that I tried to say.
Interesting, so the Swedish government requires proficiency in Swedish. Maybe we should have the same requirement and Europe criticizes our immigration policies and wants us to commitment to adding more European refugees in addition to our wevstern hemisphere refugees while they are trying to reduce their own already given commitments. But I diverge.
I stand by my statement. To require an individual with knowledge in mechanical engineering and ebm, plus experience in ebm where there are not that many machines (what 200 to 300) and to also require PROFICIENCY in English and Swedish is quite a skill set and I stand by that statement although some of you seem to need to disagree.
Re your point, very few non Swedish people speak Swedish I would think so that requirement is limiting offers to Swedish people or the few that are not Swedish but speak Swedish. Or that can learn Swedish in a short time to be acceptable to the company. I still say they better be offering a lot of money. But thanks for the language requirement education. LOL
My point exactly. Maybe the rene move is not as temporary as they would have us believe. I don't see any printer sales to Sweden. LOL Rene is now close to where the action is, specifically GE aviation. Also close to the subsidiaries and the new facilty. Perhaps the next Arcam printer expansion will be in the USA to serve GE and the other aviation companies here in the USA. As I pointed out in my post, it will be hard to fulfill the job specs especially the language. At least if they change focus to other areas, where the customers are, experience may still be a problem but language won't be. LOL. Note Rene conducts a lot of his business in English and all the arcam communications are now in English. Rene is a savy executive and knows where arcam's bread is buttered. I respet his insight and foresight. Note, while other companies, including DDD got caught in capacity problems. RENE planed ahead and has the capacity ready for the orders. I like that.
WOW, I hope they are paying a lot of money for that position as it is almost impossible knowledge. Take the need for extensive training and knowledge in mechanics and ebm, add the rhequirement for extensive experience in EBM and then filter in the need for proficiency in English AND Swedish.
That would eliminate most Americans as hardly any have Swedish proficiency. Likewise most Asians for the same reason Leaving only those Europeans who are Swedish and might have learned English as well as I would be surprised if most Europeans choose Swedish as their second language. So need both the language and technological expertise. I understand fully the need for the skill set, but wow it will be hard to fill. No wonder Rene says the single biggest problem with keeping up with demand is not machine capacity but skilled personnel. I wish arcam a lot of luck as I see a spurt in sales in the next year to keep up with the prescient capacity increase.
May be just phraseology, but I disagree with your conclusion. T o me, industrialization, or as I prefer commercialization, is not just the combination of art and science. It will happen when all the experimentation, research and R and D will determine that EBM beats the alternative technologies on a cost, quality and efficiency perspective. Then when the EBM proves itself, people (arcam and customers) must be trained to effectively use them. Then arcam will sell a lot of machines and blossom.
Have no idea what you mean by art and science. ITs a lot more pragmatic. Its science to prove up the technology as I stated above and show all the EBM advantages I've outlined in other parts. I have no idea what you mean by art unless its individual perceptions but they come when the science and superiority over other technologies are shown. And no Trader, its not a zero sum gain. In fact, I predict multiple technologies showing their advantages and winning orders and the key question will be ultimately how many of those orders EBM and arcam win. With all the speculation, the answer is the jury is still out and arcam has to prove itself both on a technological level and with the comfort zone of buyers.
Re all the technological posts I've been reading, way beyond me but not as relevant as the following: Proving to customers that the arcam EBM product trumps alternative techologicies net net. And that net net is not just one issue, weight density or all the other one topics many have discussed. It is a net net game and the jury is out
Good Leap News. As you all know the LEAP will be on all the 737s and 919 (I think) Chinese plane. The only sharing will be on the Airbus neo where the buyer can choose between the Leap and PW. So far the Leap was barely winning. BUT, given all the PW engine troubles and quatar (I think) refusing delivery because of the PW engines, it looks like the Leap will win even more orders. Since I, unlike trader, believe in Rene and that a final decision on EBM and Leap engines has not been made (the leap train has not left the station as trader posted multiple times) we can hope that EBM will be on those later engines spurring the need for more arcam machines. So far the spec and noise are very positive even though we still await solid orders. If the EBM blades are as good as all say, I beat we will be on the LEAP eventually, even if only in small way. As I keep saying to Trader, the jury is still out, it is not a zero sum game and the most positive supportive factor is even Rene says EBM involvement is still possible.
Trader, Finance guy. Then why speculate so much on technological or product issues which you admittedly know so little about. why speculate on sales, arcam pps etc when you are so often proven wrong. I incorporate by reference all those posts by many showing your errors.
Regarding the post I;m responding to, Trader it is not all about density in deciding whether to migrate to EBM. As we have all read, the ebm product is more denser AND easier to use with titanium, can produce one part rather than composites of many parts, can design parts can't do with other technologies, can produce much faster and more individually, less material waste, can change configuration more quickly as easier to adjust, etc etc ec.
like a video may not contain all pertinent info, density is not the sole issue which will determine migration to EBM. It will happen when customer become comfortable with it like with any new technology AND when they determine that EBM has cost and quality advantages. Density is only one component so why focus a whole post just on that.?
Trader, more wiggles. You do make a lot, mostly, unsubstantiated posts. I've documented many and incorporate by reference all my posts showing your erroneous conclusions and unsubstantiated posts. Leap engines were certified a long time ago, we would not get any bulk orders, then would sell 1000s in a year then 100 or less. See competitors and bogeymen in every video and PR, infer things from whether you see or don't see something in a video, infer so many things from the videos you think you see and promise over and over that you won't keep on with your engine speculations and ravings. Bottom line, you do keep posting unsubstantiated things and infer based on nothing. Like your oft posted comment that the leap train has left the station and composites would leap frog ebm. You have such; a need to post your conclusions but have no basic knowledge to back it up. Why don't you try being careful about what conclusions and speculation you make. Almost every conclusion you have made has been false including your statements that no one foresaw that arcam would only get some blades and how many blades will be printed and how many machines will be needed. if anyone should be careful it is you trader. Rene and I and others have been stating that for a variety of reasons Arcam would only print some of the blades with other technologies handling the rest. No one can help what you assume, but everyone except you have known that EBM would only print some of the blades. More wrongful conclusions of yours. Just like we all knew your post that arcam would sell thousands of printers this year based on the avio order was plain wrong. Can't you ever make the right conclusion and post accurate info rather than just posting unsubstantiated conclusions and speculation of yours.
Trader, over and over you have a disconnect between the links you post and the conclusions you draw therefrom. Where is your support for your conclusion that arcam would print all the blades, where is your link that arcam would sell thousands of printers this year, where is you link that arcam will only be printing 9x blades as you so often post, etc, etc etc. Case made
Trader, more wiggles. You do make a lot, most, unsubstantiated posts. I've documented many and incorporate by reference all my posts showing your erroneous conclusions and unsubstantiated posts. Leap engines were certified a long time ago, we would not get any bulk orders, then would sell 1000s in a year then 100 or less. See competitors and bogeymen in every video and PR, infer things from whether you see or don't see something in a video, infer so many things from the videos you think you see and promise over and over that you won't keep on with your engine speculations and ravings. Bottom line, you do keep posting unsubstantiated things and infer based on nothing. Like your oft posted comment that the leap train has left the station and composites would leap frog ebm. You have such; a need to post your conclusions but have no basic knowledge to back it up. Why don't you try being careful about what conclusions and speculation you make. Almost every conclusion you have made has been false including your statements that no one foresaw that arcam would only get some blades and how many blades will be printed and how many machines will be needed. if anyone should be careful it is you trader.
Investorhub, like you I prefer and hope for any scenario that maximizes arcam's influence in any sector, aviation, medical or others. But, and this is a big but, given the abject lack of news and specific documentation, we just don't know. Idle speculation, especially the type that sees bogeymen around every corner, draws conclusions based on little facts and simply guesses re relevant detail serves no purpose.
We do not know what is actually going on in the minds of buyers or even what decisions they have actually made. We do not really know what parts will be EBM produced, in what engines, what the time frames for decision making are, or what conclusions buyers will make. It is not surprising that if the only engine blades will be in is the 9x, that avio is staggering their buy as that engine will not be In production for years. All that is needed now are a few test blades.
So what are the current 10 avio machines producing. Test blades, other parts, blades for the test leap and 9x engines, commercial blades for the nx, etc????? We just don't know yet some spend a lot of posts speculating. I remember last year that one posted over and over that the leap engine was already in mass production based on the existence of 30. The same source said the leap had already been certified as had arcam blades. Not true as confirmed by the big announcement at the end of last year that the leap had just been approved. No mention of blade approval.
We just don't know. I wish we had more solid info but we don't. We don't know what will happen, how many blades can be produced with one machine or how many parts will be needed.
What we do know is that GE has said it likes ebm and has put money where its mouth is. We also know that a lot of aviation companies have been experimenting and researching EBM and many have positive statements to make about it. We do know that eBm has positive advantages over traditional manufacturing: Can be designed individually which cannot be traditionally manufactured, less waste, more durability, make one part rather than composites of several, more efficient use of metal, more dense, etc etc etc. When the cost and quality of an EbM part exceeds that of traditionally manufactured parts, and the buyer convinces themselves that the EBM made part can effectively replace the existing part at a better quality and cost, and the regulators concur (I know some have said the regulators have no say over individual ebm parts, huh) then we will see a conversion from the traditional to the ebm and consequent arcam printer sales.
But as we have with this first bulk GE order, it will take time and will be at the whim of the buyer re the total number of machines sold and the timing thereof. Some gave up on the bulk order and rene's statements of same but as I've said for years believe Rene, believe his guidance and good things will eventually happen just not in the time frame we might prefer. And as ive also said for years, Investor it is not a zero sum game as some think. EBM will get its share of aviation parts as Rene as said and other technology will get theirs. There is room for al given the number of engines and the huge number of parts that each engine needs.
Investorhub, like you I prefer and hope for any scenario that maximizes arcam's influence in any sector, aviation, medical or others. But, and this is a big but, given the abject lack of news and specific documentation, we just don't know. Idle speculation, especially the type that sees bogeymen around every corner, draws conclusions based on little facts and simply guesses re relevant detail serves no purpose.
We do not know what is actually going on in the minds of buyers or even what decisions they have actually made. We do not really know what parts will be EBM produced, in what engines, what the time frames for decision making are, or what conclusions buyers will make. It is not surprising that if the only engine blades will be in is the 9x, that avio is staggering their buy as that engine will not be In production for years. All that is needed now are a few test blades.
So what are the current 10 avio machines producing. Test blades, other parts, blades for the test leap and 9x engines, commercial blades for the nx, etc????? We just don't know yet some spend a lot of posts speculating. I remember last year that one posted over and over that the leap engine was already in mass production based on the existence of 30. The same source said the leap had already been certified as had arcam blades. Not true as confirmed by the big announcement at the end of last year that the leap had just been approved. No mention of blade approval.
We just don't know. I wish we had more solid info but we don't. We don't know what will happen, how many blades can be produced with one machine or how many parts will be needed.
What we do know is that GE has said it likes ebm and has put money where its mouth is. We also know that a lot of aviation companies have been experimenting and researching EBM and many have positive statements to make about it. We do know that eBm has positive advantages over traditional manufacturing: Can be designed individually which cannot be traditionally manufactured, less waste, more durability, make one part rather than composites of several, more efficient use of metal, more dense, etc etc etc. When the cost and quality of an EbM part exceeds that of traditionally manufactured parts, and the buyer convinces themselves that the EBM made part can effectively replace the existing part at a better quality and cost, and the regulators concur (I know some have said the regulators have no say over individual ebm parts, huh) then we will see a conversion from the traditional to the ebm and consequent arcam printer sales.
But as we have with this first bulk GE order, it will take time and will be at the whim of the buyer re the total number of machines sold and the timing thereof. Some gave up on the bulk order and rene's statements of same but as I've said for years believe Rene, believe his guidance and good things will eventually happen just not in the time frame we might prefer. And as ive also said for years, Investor it is not a zero sum game as some think. EBM will get its share of aviation parts as Rene as said and other technology will get theirs. There is room for al given the number of engines and the huge number of parts that each engine needs.
Tamhas, absolutely true that Trader left himself wiggle room by admitting to asking an imprecise question to an undisclosed source. But the context of discussion is the time frame to get an EBM part to the volume printing stage and requiring a bulk purchase. Right??
But to critique the issue further:
1. Even if it is just flight testing and not commercialization:
a. who cares as I assume there is a lot of prototype testing going on by all the aircraft companies including RR and PW, but this testing won't really become relevant till a decision to include the part in the specs is made. Right?? RR and PW both admit to an active prototype testing program but so far no commitment to incorporation of the part into final configuration and hence final end use. Trader has lamented this very point. Right??
b. Even if its only flight testing, don't you think 6 to 9 months is optimistic for a part to go from creation stage to inclusion into even a test engine as that time includes analyzing of the part, decision how it will fit into the product, deciding to fit it into the product and then including it in the manufacturing process so that it will be included into the flight testing engine or aircraft. To me going from creation stage to deciding to include it into an engine or plane and then completing the process would be time consuming. But i'm just guessing and it really does not matte anyway viz the RR and PW examples. Remember how long they have been working on the parts they have announced (years) and they haven't made a decision yet. Right??
2. Trader said it didn't take very long to convert a traditional manufactured part to AM manufacturing. Again I point out the example of PW and RR. They have been working for years on just that concept. Trying to move a traditionaly manufactured part to AM and still haven't acheieved it yet. Same with Avio, its been working to convert traditionally manufactured blades to AM since before 8/14 when the new blade process was first announced and it hasn't been fully achieved yet as there is no evidence that any ebm blades have been fully certified and incorporated into final engines yet. We don't even know if the blades are fully approved yet.
3. Again I mention the articles mid last year that indicated that for the first time the fAA certified an AM part. If it was only manufacturer responsibility to approve a part, and the FAA had no jurisdiction, why the major articles indicated THAT THE FAA HAD APPROVED THE FIRST AM PART. Remember also when the announcement was made last year that an new AM sensor had been approved to replace a current sensor by the FAA. These examples kinda debunk the theory that the FAA does not approve individual parts and its only the mfg responsibility. LOL
Me thinks both the mfg and FAA must approve both the parts and process. Once the FAA becomes comfortable with the process, probably the part approval process will become easier but don't think we are there yet as shown by the time frames to get the blades approved.
4. Cost. Trader disparages prior posts on the cost factor. Bottom line, obviously traditional manufactures have a vested interest in their current processes and buyers have a comfort zone with the status quo. That is natural. BUT as alternative processes become well known and achieve a comfort zone, decisions will be based on the ethicacy and cost of AM produced parts vis a viz the traditionally manufactured part and I've read a plethora of articles toutig the benefits of the AM manufactured parts only can be created by AM, less waste, more durable, one whole part ratter than multiple incorporated parts, more efficient material usage, etc etc etc. So it will be the ultimate final cost and quality of the AM product versus the treaditionally mfg part that will determine which is used.
Tamhas, feel free to point out any errors in my posting or logic or where i'e misstated trader's position. My main concern is the amount of time he jumps to conclusion, posts things based on weak premises and just provides erroneous information and then when called on it accuses the caller of bashing negative information,. Remember when not too long ago he shouted that arcam would not have significant sales last quarter because of no announcmeents, than when we got a bulk order he shouted that we would sell thousands of printers short term and then when he discovered that all orders would not be immediate (I reasonable expectation given than avio was just setting up for mass production) he feared we would get very few orders.
My only request is that we wait till we have some solid information before we start shouting our conclusions. As I've said multiple times for years, the jury is still out on many of these issues and we just don't know. For example, the leap engine has not left the station as trader keeps telling us.
Trader, I do not pretend to have expertise in this field but I do have commonsense.
Time from decision to have a part produced via Am to flying on a plane 6 to 9 months???. Trader takes great effort to inform us of this statement.
Do any of you believe that it would only take 6 to 9 months to decide to make an AM part to its flying on a plane??????? Geeze, first the part would have to be produced. Then an aircraft manufacturer or engine manufacturer would have to decide if it liked the part, was quality and cost effective, wanted to buy it and whether it would fit the design configurations of the desired destination. Then the FAA would have to decide if the newly configured and designed and manufactured part would be airworthy and be suitable for flying in a plane. Then it would have to be incorporated into the manufacturing process and then fitted into a plane. Remember readers, the announcement last year that the first AM produced part had been approved by the FAA. Does this suggest that the FAA does not have a hand in approving different AM produced parts? I rest my case.
As per usual, the Trader post dos not pass the smell test. Anyone disagree? I thought he was going to stop posting about the engine AM part issue or at least rely on facts and not Trader conclusions. Now we have an unnamed source saying that from decision to flying in a plan would only take 6 to 9 months. He does it again.
Trader If I may interject I've already provide a litany of examples of your inaccurate posts and you have not been able to correct one. The LEap train has not left the station, we did get bulk orders, no not thousands of printers and we did sell printers last quarter even if unannounced Enough inaccurate examples. A few more, no EBAM is not a significant competitor to arcam, no compsites hage not leapfrogged ebm and yes we did get the bulk order you suggested would not happen even though it took longer than you hoped. And no leap engines, even with 30 produced were not in mass production back in mid 2015 as you posted.
Hope I've answered your question, can provide many more examples if requested.
Links??? Except for your favored videos and PR articles when have you provided any substantive links and they don't confirm anything. Just yield to your desire to post your speculations.
Hope I answered your open question.
Trader, disingenuous again. Your so called support for your POV as you put it simply consistes of assumptions. Like when you said we would have no bulk orders because they had not been announced, the leap train had left the station and that composites would leapfrog ebm, etc, etc. I incorporate by reference my last several posts where I outlined the erroneous conclusions and posts you have made rather than repeating same.
Bottom line, you set forth postulations and conclusions based thereon. You do not know the specifics of what is being tested now in the airplanes or engines. You imply that the 10 existing printers are busy printing 9x engines, thus can't be printing nx engines. How do you know? Maybe none or few 9x blades are being printed at this time since mfg has not begun and all 10 existing printers are printing nx blades. You do not know how many printers will be required to print any particular number of blades. You do not know what is going on in the GE, etc decision making process. You do not know what decisions are being made re the engine specs. You may surmise, but so many of your surmises have been proven wrong with time including your surmises that we would have no GE orders because of time lag, than sell thousands of printers in a short period of time when we got the order, then 100s or less as you discovered that all 10 of the avio order would not be immediately delivered. Contrary to your prior posts, volume production has not begun and a lot of changes can be made regarding the initial engine configuration as well as the configuration of replacement engines. Per Rene, the leap engine has not left the station despite all of your posts.
You have said that readers attack those that are not bullish. WRONG. Many simply have pointed out your false conclusions in the past, those ongoing false conclusions and the flaws in your posts. THat is not attacking those that are not bullish. THat is questioning premature conclusions and stating that we don't know yet, the jury is still out. Yet you keep posting like you know.
I find it amusing that you admitted that you were repetitive and suggested that you should not have continued your engine posting, but then repeated your flawed reasoning again and now are repeating it again. If you were willing to let the issue drop, let it drop.
Trader, you are disingenuous.
You shouted months ago that the planes, leap engine and blades were all certified when it turns out that they were not when you so shouted and some of the certification process is still ongoing. You stated that the leap engine was in mass production months ago based on the production of 30 test engines when all sources indicate it would be in volume production till the future. You stated that the leap engine train had left the station and that composites would leapfrog EBM when Rene says no decision has been made on the leap and composites have not leapfrogged ebm to date. You posted that EBAM and other technologies would be a threat to arcam simply because you read about them, saw a video or heard something. I could go on but readers of my posts already know about all your hand wringing, worries over anything and erroneous statements and conclusions. Heck because you don't hear a sales announcement you assume that arcam isn't selling whereas their last quarters unannounced sales were excellent at 19. You imply arcam will have no bulk sales, then post it will be 1000s and then 100s or less. LOL. All those posts were here recently or can be retrieved on the arcam historical posting section.
Please stop wiggling your conclusions and posting incorrect information. We don't know how many blades will be sold or what engines they will be on as we don't have the data yet. we don't know how many parts will be ebm produced and we certainly don't know that arcam will sell 1000s of printers as you posted here. Many, including Rene in a CC said arcam would only be producing one or two blade parts contrary to your post as did I when I stated that you were dead wrong that composites would leapfrog EBM and that as I said ebm may produce some of the blades and composites or other technologies other parts.
So stop speculating and posting your speculations. You are no good at it. The bottom line is that the jury is still out. The last we have from Rene is that no decision has been made on the Leap. The train has NOT left the station as you posted. Most of these engines, parts and planes have not started mass production yet contrary to what you posted. There is time to change the configuration now and for future production phases or at replacement time. You are known for making false conclusions like all your competitor hand wringing and false statements re the certification progress you posted months ago and were debunked.
Wait to post till the jury comes in. Don't assume that there will be poor sales because none have been announced. Don't get panicky because the sales volume may decelerate slightly based on a higher base line as you've posted recently. Look at revenue growth and as far as i'm concerned if it stays above 50% and close to 70% q/q, that's great.
Now I've made my case re why your concerns and conclusions do not have a lot of credibility. You simply don't know and won't know and your conclusions are not credible as has been shown. Case made
The
Tom I have an answer for you.
To answer both questions, the post where trader stated that EBM was not on any of the LEAPs was in post 3488 and the slide mentioned can be found in the aviation investor day presentation and in Charlies 3487 post. This slide lists blades on the nx, 9x and leap engines and estimates the number of printers that will be required to meet the anticipated blade production.
But as you know, trader's comments and conclusions are simply not credible. He posted months ago that the engines, planes and blades were already certified and ready to go whereas they are still undergoing the certification process. He stated that the leaps were already in volume production, based on 30 having been produced whereas we all know volume production won't start till mid 2016 if then. He has posted that the leap train left the station and that composites would leapfrog EBM. He implied that arcam would not get any bulk orders because of the time lag from the time that Rene first hinted that we would get them, then when the order first came he shouted that we would sell 1000s of printers and then when he discovered all the Avio orders would not be immediately delivered he posted that it would be 100s or less. As soon as he read about the EBAM technology he feared that it might pose deadly competition for arcam as well as when he reads any PR, sees any video or hears about any technology. How often as he posted his fears about new technology not to mention his statements that the leap has left, composites would leapfrog ebm and has no nuances for the fact that ebm may be producing some parts while other technologies may be producing others such as some blades. He says no one mentioned that we would be producing only 2 blades or sections. I've stated for years, based on Rene's comments that we would only have part of the LPts and that other technologies would have other parts. That rhe jury was still out and that per Rene no decision has been made on the Leap per Rene and that the train has not left the station. It is not a zero sum game and room is there for multiple technologies to prosper.
I have been pointing out these facts for months and tried to temper his fears of every new technology mentioned. These facts and traders posts can be easily reviewed here and on the posting history section of the yahoo message arcam board as can my responses.
Yes we need to be aware of new technologies and it would be nice to have more news.But for competitive reasons both arcam and the plane builders are being quiet. But don't be overly concerned with what Trader says, given the number of erroneous posts, he isn't either. Note in his summary of the investor meeting, he stated that "we thought" there would be a need for thousands of printers. THe fact is only he made that statement. No one will now how many printers will be needed till we have some idea of the number of EBM parts that will be used in the engines and airplanes and we simply don't have that data yet. The jury is out.
Hope this answers your questions and gives you some background. Traders Leap comment is not supported nor is the number of blades and other parts estimated in the presentation as no final decisions have been made or at least disclosed.
So true. Only articles I've read on the subject, late last year, suggested only one or two 3d printed parts had been certified. This suggests not many 3d parts have been certified and don't even know if the blades have completed the process despite some that have shouted months and months ago, well before the fact, that the leap, blades etc had been certified. I'm not sure if even the blades are fully certified.
That's why I keep whinning and asking for information beyond the generic: how many parts certified, how many and where are in the process, whether they are laser or ebm and how soon will the process be completed. Are the blades fully certified and ready to go or just nearing the end??? Any info appreciated. But its time to go beyond the generic, albeit very useful and interesting, and get some specific info. But Rene and the aircraft companies are being very silent.
Tom, thank you, another insightful, informative and interesting article on arcam and its positives, based on fact and not unsupported conclusions. I've read a lot of stuff that you have mentioned and its one reason that I support arcam and its story. But based on what I've read, I'll add other positives of arcam and EBM. Not on does it make a stronger product, but cheaper as it can make a single whole part rather than a part containing 10ish or more assemblies. Its quicker than many alternatives, cheaper, can be more individually designed, denser, less material waste and is easier to work with than some of the traditional methods. I;m sure there are others.
But I make some refinements on your post.
(1) The GKN article does mention multiple parts, but haven't read that any of them have been incorporated yet despite the reference to producing production parts for production aircraft.
(2) Which some of these additional parts were mentioned with time fames and certification status.
(3) The article you mentioned was dated in 2013. The point I was trying to make is if the part is successfully built 3d wise why no updated word on certification. THe blades were first mentioned in 8/14 and if you believe the arcam order was for blades why no word on production of this one part.
(4) Of course lives are at stake. But at some point the certification process must begin and end and a decision made to incorporate the part on planes and in engines. We don't know if the blades are finally certified, but probably if not well on their way. But the ebm concept was first announced in 8/14. Some of these parts including the ones in the article you cited were being developed in 2013. Where are they.
In sum, I agree with most of your points although to me the key moat is the advantages of ebm and the patents issued thereon. I'm not technically savy enough to understand your technological points.
But what I am asking, an want specific info on, is not the generic advances and development being done on EBM. I know that's being done and have read a lot of articles thereon. What I need for my simple technological blade is the commercial progress being made. How many parts being considered for EBM. THe specific parts, where they are on the certification ladder, how many parts will be used per engine/plane and how many printers might be involved and when. I read a series of articles late in 2015 that indicated that only one or two AM parts, laser and ebm, had been certified. This suggests that not many other parts, however many are in development or experimentation, have been certified. BUt curious about how many may be in the certification process.
We need to end the generic information about how AM might impact the aviation industry and get information on how many parts we are talking about. Whether they are laser or ebm produced, which parts, how many, where are they in the certification process, how many will be use in each plane/engine, how many printers will they require, etc. I expect this news will be positive and once we have some clear indication of the answers, that's when arcam will take off assuming my expectations are correct. Generic, maybe info, will good reads are not close enough to sales and revenue to impress the market.
Any thoughts, opinions on this need for more specific info. Between us and the other knowledgeable level headed readers here we should get info. So far, nothing from the great conflab posted here or moving the pps. Hope that will change.
Trader I know that you like to jump to conclusions. Months ago you posted that the LEAP engine was in production based on the fact that 30 engines had been produced when all anecdotal media and informative sources have confirmed that LEAP volume production, which is what most consider applicable to the term production will not start till circa mi 2016 if then.
Trader, the truth is that no parts will be considered for volume production till they are certified and very few parts have been formally certified. I'm not sure if even the blades have been finally certified by regulators. But if I recall an end of 2015 couple of articles were talking about the first 3d part being certified by regulators, suggesting that not many have been certified.
So to answer your question, the odds are no it is not in volume production yet. Nor are most 3d parts, including the blades which you suggested would experience composites leapfrogging over ebm, then with the Avio announcement would yield 1000 or was it 2000 printer sales and now have retracted and hope for just another order. LOL
But I would like more news re how EBM and Arcam are progressing on other potential aviation parts, where they are in the certification process and some estimate on how many printers that might require and what time frame. But given the lack of news from arcam and the aviation sector, we probably won't know till it actually happens. Patience trader, you will be rewarded. But enough of the bogey men around every corner.
You misunderstood what I was saying as I've appreciated and told you so the insight and info that you were providing. But don't tell me what to do or when to sell I've bee bullish on Arcam and posted accordingly for years.
My point if you read with comprehension was that given the 3 years since the article, and the article stated the only holdup on EBM was certification, was why haven't we heard more about this part being incorporated in the new planes and engines being released now. One would have expected if these parts were viable and being contemplated for commercialization that we would have heard some solid utilization news by now 3 years after the article. Right???? All I asked was did any know the status of these developments 3 years later.
I did read trancon posts as well as all the other posts and with understanding. I don't like the wait, don't like any delay in arcam taking of which it will do if it gets more parts on the airplanes and engines. I don't trust or not trust your posts. I read them with interest if they provide new information and not just weak conclusions based on questionable data. I've posted that I appreciate the info you provided and do not appreciate the tone of this post. I bought a lot more at 11/12 when others were statin that arcam would go to 10 and below and will get out when I determine it prudent and not when you advise me.
To sum up, no I don't like the wait but no I will not get out as I like the arcam story. Get it
You misunderstood what I was saying as I've appreciated, and told you so, the insight and info that you were providing.
My point, if you read carefully, was that given the 3 years since the article, and the article stated the only holdup on EBM was certification, was why haven't we heard more about this part being incorporated in the new planes and engines being released now. One would have expected if these parts were viable and being contemplated for commercialization that we would have heard some solid utilization news by now, 3 years after the article. Right???? All I asked was did any know the status of these developments 3 years later.
I did read trancon posts as well as all the other posts and with understanding. I don't like the wait, don't like any delay in arcam taking off which it will do if it gets more parts on the airplanes and engines. I don't trust or not trust your posts. I read them with interest if they provide new information and not just weak conclusions based on questionable data, like those that see competitors and dire circumstances in every video and PR. I've posted that I appreciate the info you provided and do not appreciate the tone of this post. I bought a lot more at 11/12 when others were stating that arcam would go to 10 and below and will get out when I determine it prudent and not when you advise me.
To sum up, no I don't like the wait but no I will not get out as I like the arcam story. Get it