4+1 vs fully 5 axis, what can I not do?

[zalectric]

I am concidering purchasing a 5 axis mill for making low volume/high end motorcycle parts and Electronics enclosures. Note all the parts that will be machined will be designed in house.

One option that I had not intially concidered is to get the machine with a 4+1 controller that can so simultanius machining using any of the 4 axis at a time. From what I can tell I will miss out on full 5 axis deburr passes. I don't exspect to NEED 5 axis swarf passes on my parts. Is there any other machine issues I should exspect from this choice of control vs the full 5 axis?

 

[???]

Really depends on the shape of your parts. 5 axis simultaneous does enable better control of cutting conditions at the tool tip. It really becomes a need on complex 3d surfaces that are deep and difficult to reach with tiny details as in mould making. If money isn't a problem 5 axis simultaneous is the way to go as you will definitely be more efficient and you will have the extra capability even if you don't initially use it.

 

[mhajicek]

You won't be able to make certain turbine designs, or make effective use of circle-segment cutters for five-axis finishing.

 

[sinha]

For complex 3D surfacing applications, the tool would need to approach the workpiece from any direction (to avoid interference), which would continuously change. This would be possible only with a 5-axis simultaneous control. However, in majority of cases, even 4+1 also will do, if any 4 out of the 5 axes can be simultaneously controlled.

 

[mhajicek]

In my experience, the breakdown is something like this, exact numbers may vary:
80% 3 axis.
10% 3+1
5% 3+2
3% full 4
1% 4+1
1% full 5

 

[empower]

In my experience, the breakdown is something like this, exact numbers may vary:
80% 3 axis.
10% 3+1
5% 3+2
3% full 4
1% 4+1
1% full 5

in my experience, 3+2 is a hell of a lot more than 5%. sure, a lot of it can be done in 3 axis, but way faster as 3+2

 

[Nerv]

in my experience, 3+2 is a hell of a lot more than 5%. sure, a lot of it can be done in 3 axis, but way faster as 3+2

I agree.

If this is not the case likely a better CAM software may be in order to help utilize strategies that improve machining that can be done in 3 axis but with 3+2 can allow for shorter tools, more efficient surface finishing and more. I cannot recall the last time I only used XYZ for machining a component.

 

[DouglasJRizzo]

When I worked at DN/Doosan, the 4+1 machine was limited only in that it couldn't move all 5 axis simultaneously. One could cut with any 4 out of the 5, with the 5th one stationary.
SME tell us that 80% of all milling is 3 axis and the rest is divided up, so if money is a concern, a 4+1 can save you quite a bit and still accomplish a lot.

 

[gkoenig]

In my experience, the breakdown is something like this, exact numbers may vary:
80% 3 axis.
10% 3+1
5% 3+2
3% full 4
1% 4+1
1% full 5

I think the total of 4% for Full 4 and Full 4 + 1 is... highly optimistic.

Just look at the CAM toolsets for doing that kind of work - they all suck. There are a couple of 4th axis wrap type paths available across most CAM packages... and then you get a whole slew of full 5 axis tools for everything from a basic swarf cut to hardcore turbo machinery, port, and airfoil processing. Very few 4 axis machines have the hardware, processing chops, or control features (TCPC) necessary to do quality simultaneous 4 axis work... and when you DO get into those kind of parts, everyone has just moved up to a real 5 axis machine and skipped this 4 axis middle ground business.

 

[zalectric]

My parts are generally prismatic or blended prismatic. The most challenging part I am likely to do is brake caliper or motorcycle brake lever. I do not plan to do anything such as a impeller.