Built for aerospace expectations

Aerospace work breaks when assumptions are vague: which features are critical-to-function, how the part is verified, and what documentation is required at shipment. Our goal is to lock down feasibility and inspection intent before cutting starts.

What we optimize for

• AS9100 discipline: controlled revisions, traceability expectations, and documentation-ready communication.
• Fit-critical interfaces: datum-driven planning for bores, hole patterns, mating faces, and alignment features.
• Qualified tight tolerance capability: tolerances as tight as ± .0001 depending on material, geometry, and measurement method.
• Measurable acceptance: inspection intent aligned to how the assembly actually locates and functions.
• RFQ speed: fewer loops by asking targeted questions (datums, stackup, reporting) instead of generic back-and-forth.

RFQ inputs that win time

If you want a quote that matches drawing intent, send the complete package and call out the interfaces that truly drive function.

• PDF drawing + 3D CAD (STEP preferred) and the current revision identifier
• Material and condition (if known), quantity, and must-hit date
• Critical-to-function features highlighted (fits, bores, patterns, sealing faces)
• Inspection/reporting expectations (first article, dimensional report, objective evidence)
• Any special notes that affect acceptance (surface finish, masking, handling)

If you need a printable internal package, use: precision machining guide (PDF), buyer checklist (PDF), and CAD prep guide (PDF).

Proof and context

For engineer-first examples written as problem → solution → process → outcome, see our case studies. For a deeper aerospace-focused explainer covering documentation and acceptance, read the Aerospace fabrication guide.