Faro Arm vs CMM (Aerospace)

[chevrollac]

I would like to hear some thoughts on this...... I am a Manufaturing Engineer in the Aerospace Industry and just cought wind that a (new) supplier we have used is using a Faro 7 axis arm to inspect the tooling they make for us, more specifically a drill jig with a angled drill bushing whole that has to be within .002 TP Is the Faro Arm adequite for this?????

[jboggs]

My first thought:
Have you seen any evidence that their parts are not meeting the specs? Your company pays that supplier to produce those parts to a certain spec. As long as they meet that spec, it really doesn't matter how they do it, right?
You want suppliers to be competitive and creative, right? Let them do it their way.

Second thought:
Your own research on the exact capabilities of the Faro 7 arm (like from their literature) will mean more than random anonymous comments from an engineering forum. Don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with asking. Maybe someone on here has experience and can tell you that the Faro arm didn't meet its claimed capabilities. Just don't make any business decisions on something you haven't personally verified.

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Hope my rough response doesn't inhibit your future questions. We really do appreciate them.

[chevrollac]

"Hope my rough response doesn't inhibit your future questions" NEVER
I can be very rough myself and have more respect for those who don't sugar coat.

"Have you seen any evidence that their parts are not meeting the specs?"
We have not recieved any tooling from these folks yet to determine if their Faro Arm compares to our Zeiss yet. HOWEVER, when talking to them on the phone they seemed to be blown away with the tolerences we had on our tooling prints..... Also this supplier was chosen as the owner is a friend of our purchasing manager. I am very open minded to new ideas as long as the end result is the same.

"As long as they meet that spec, it really doesn't matter how they do it, right?"
What made you think I want to dictate how they inspect?

"Nothing wrong with asking. Maybe someone on here has experience and can tell you that the Faro arm didn't meet its claimed capabilities."
And that my friend is why I posted this question.

[Kelly_Bramble]

I didn't think FARO Arms where any more accurate than +/- .005. Also, the larger the FARO Arm the less accurate.

In general, measuring tools should be x10 (inch units) more accurate than the object they are measuring, so this means the FARO arm should be repeatable to .0004” for a part at +/- .002 relative to the zero (datum).

I have heard of some of my customers using the 5% rule, but that still means repeatability of .0008” total variability of the FARO Arm measurements…

I doubt that FARO Arm holds a candle next to your Zeiss!

Ask them for the calibration certs on the FARO...

[goochrick]

This should be a problem, or could lead to problems in the future "Also this supplier was chosen as the owner is a friend of our purchasing manager.". I've seen this kind of thing get out of hand especially when this is a part of the conversation "HOWEVER, when talking to them on the phone they seemed to be blown away with the tolerences we had on our tooling prints". Though like jbbos states if they bid it and can follow thru and deliver why would you care how they meet the print. My guess is they won't be able too and that should be flushed out early in the bidding process and the follow up questions. Where they ask things like can you change this tolerance or can you dimension it this way, and another good one that you'll hear to get you thinking that what they are asking for is normal is "We can do this this way, but it's going to cost a lot more". If your other vendors aren't saying the same type of thing or biding in the same price range then this new relationship probably isn't one you want to enter into. I've seen my company change drawings to make bad parts from company "X" be able to pass our own inspection, when the drawings as drawn were fine, but company "X" didn't make the parts correctly, which is why I said this kind of thing can get out of hand. I'm sure company "X" has or had a friend in the company I work for too at one time.

[CMM_Mike]

The company that I work for actually requested that a local supplier purchase a Zeiss in order to do business with us. This will enable programs to be shared and since the same technology is being utilized the associative errors from different technologies will be nill. You know the whole apples to apples analogy.

Mike

[Bwheaton22]

No. If they are using a 7 axis Faro, they are blowing smoke. It sounds great, looks excellent, but in all reality they aren't meeting those specs, esp. consistently. I use a 4, 7 and 8 axis Faro daily/ semi-daily per. The most important aspect is how many points they are taking scanning, if they are simply "checking" the tolerances and not taking the time to run a thorough scan you'll br lucky to get within .007

Bob

[andrea_abdallah]

hello,
i have faro arm edge but i dont have the laser hand
and i also dont have the software
can someone help me and tell me how i can use it without these two what are the functions?
and if i want the software but not from the company

[jposadag]

Excelente respuesta a veces perdemos de vista la exactitud vs la tolerancia total si cumple la exactitud de 1 a 10 es correcto

[jchasek]

It depends on the size of the tool to be inspected and also the size of the FARO arm, the longer the arm the larger the volumetric error. I was a Programmer and Inspector for 9 years in the Aerospace industry and we rarely if ever saw .002" Positional. This is very difficult to hit. I would suggest a gantry CMM if you need this kind of tolerance. The error on a 7' FARO Edge is .0009" over the entire volume of the arm. Hitting .002" on a small part would work if the part is programmed correctly, making sure the cylinder is constrained to the base plane, if the cylinder is on a curved surface then it gets tricky.