Carbon Fiber Composite 3D Printing Draws $40 Million

Carbon fiber composite 3D printing just got a production-scale check. On September 14, 2026, TCT Magazine reported that Impossible Objects closed a $40 million Series B to build more CBAM 25 systems, place them at customers, and staff service around the installed base. Inflection Equity led; Aaron Wealth Management, OCA Ventures, Impact Capital, and Excell Partners joined. For shops that already path continuous fiber on a bench, the story is architecture: sheet-based factory composites, not a desktop tow.

What's Happening

TCT’s September 14 report is the source for the round. Impossible Objects’ Composite-Based Additive Manufacturing (CBAM) process uses carbon-fiber-reinforced materials to make parts the company positions against CNC machining and injection molding. The CBAM 25 launched in early 2025. Since then, Impossible Objects says it has taken five orders and deployed machines with the U.S. Air Force, the National Institute for Aviation Research, the Oregon Manufacturing Innovation Center, and Rochester Institute of Technology. The technology is on the U.S. Air Force Technology Roadmap, per the company via TCT. Five orders is a small installed base; treat “explosive demand” from Inflection’s Gintaras Vaisnys as investor language, not a shipment report.

The performance numbers in the same coverage are Impossible Objects’. The CBAM 25 prints up to 25 layers per minute and is “15 times faster than competing production additive technologies.” Parts can reach strength up to 200 MPa, “up to four times” competing additive processes, with “minimal shrinkage and warpage.” At U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal, CBAM is described as supporting production of up to 10,000 drone bodies per month. The company also cites $20 million in U.S. government contracts and awards, including SBIR Phase I and II work on high-strength long-range drones, composites meant to match conventional composite strength, wiring embedded inside printed parts, and lightweight wing and fuselage structures. None of those rates, strength multiples, or monthly drone counts are independently audited in the TCT article. CEO Steve Hoover’s quote about high productivity plus tool-less flexibility is the company’s pitch for why the capital is going into machines and service, not a new process invention this week.

Why Carbon Fiber Composite 3D Printing Matters for Shops

If you run a small manufacturing cell, this raise is not a purchase order for a CBAM 25. It is a signal that investors are funding composite additive that claims CNC- and mold-like volume, especially where defense buyers will pay for distributed production. Retired U.S. Army major general Stephen Farmen, quoted by TCT, ties that to drones, counter-drone systems, and repair parts with shorter delivery times. Rock Island’s “up to 10,000 drone bodies per month” is a capacity statement from the vendor, not a published output log. Still, the use case is clear: polymer-composite airframe structure at a rate filament printers do not attempt.

The practical split for a shop that already prints continuous fiber is process, not marketing adjectives. CBAM is sheet lamination: binder on a fiber sheet, powder, stack, hot press, then blast away unbound fiber. Desktop continuous-fiber extrusion is a steered tow in thermoplastic, one path at a time, inside a bench envelope. Confusing the two leads to the wrong capital request — either a press-and-sheet cell you cannot staff, or a desktop printer asked to match 25 layers a minute on PEEK-carbon panels. Keep the 200 MPa company ceiling next to independent coupons, not next to a Hyper Strength mode spec from a different architecture.

How Carbon Fiber Composite 3D Printing Compares to Desktop Fiber

• Architecture. CBAM prints binder onto carbon or glass fiber sheets, applies polymer powder (Nylon 12 or PEEK in published work), stacks layers, and hot-presses. Desktop continuous fiber co-extrudes a thermoplastic with a continuous tow you can align to a load path.
• Fiber form. Heskin et al. describe Impossible Objects sheets as in-plane random carbon with an average fiber length of 12.7 mm and roughly 19–26% fiber volume in their coupons — long fiber, not a continuous steered skein through the part.
• Rate claim. Impossible Objects cites up to 25 layers per minute and 15× versus other production AM. Desktop CFC throughput is limited by nozzle and path; it is not a sheet waterfall.
• Strength claim. The company cites up to 200 MPa. Heskin measured 206.4 MPa tensile on CBAM Carbon/PEEK (ASTM D3039), close to that marketing ceiling for that matrix, with ~26% porosity and fiber pullout on the fracture surface.
• Volume claim. Rock Island “up to 10,000 drone bodies per month” is Impossible Objects’ via TCT. Five commercial orders since early 2025 is the named installed-base figure.
• Shop takeaway. Match process to fiber architecture. Sheet+press for panel-like production composites; steered tow for fixtures and brackets on a bench. Do not treat a desktop printer as a CBAM 25 stand-in.

What the Research Says

Heskin and colleagues at Missouri S&T fabricated Carbon/Nylon 12 and Carbon/PEEK on Impossible Objects’ CBAM process and ran compression, tensile, flexural, impact, DSC, and TGA. Carbon/PEEK reached 206.4 MPa tensile — 97.5% higher than their Carbon/Nylon 12, with a 79.8% higher elastic modulus and 59.6% higher flexural strength (205.64 MPa versus 128.81 MPa). Degradation began near 350 °C for Carbon/PEEK versus 298 °C for Carbon/Nylon 12. SEM of tensile fractures showed widespread fiber pullout; they argue the interface, not fiber breakage, limited load transfer. They also report ~25–26% porosity from insufficient powder fill, even after hot pressing. That 206.4 MPa sits next to Impossible Objects’ “up to 200 MPa” claim, but it is coupon data on random-sheet CBAM with known porosity — not a drone-body production lot (Heskin et al., 2025).

Dairabayeva, Auyeskhan, and Talamona tested fused-filament continuous carbon fiber in PETG with different layer counts and guide angles. Neat PETG failed at 46.5 MPa. Three 0° continuous-carbon layers reached 159.1 MPa, a 242% increase. Off-axis 15° stacks were weaker than aligned 0° stacks at the same fiber count. That is desktop-style steered tow, the architecture a shop actually owns, and it still lands below Heskin’s CBAM Carbon/PEEK coupon and well below what aligned high-fiber-fraction CFC can do in a dedicated Hyper Strength mode. Process and fiber orientation both move the number; a single “carbon fiber 3D printing” headline does not (Dairabayeva et al., 2024).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is carbon fiber composite 3D printing in the CBAM process?

Carbon fiber composite 3D printing here means Impossible Objects’ CBAM route: inkjet binder on fiber sheets, polymer powder, then a hot press. TCT reports a $40 million Series B to scale the CBAM 25. The company cites up to 25 layers per minute and up to 200 MPa. Those rate and strength figures are Impossible Objects’, not a third-party production audit in the TCT story.

How does CBAM differ from desktop continuous-fiber printing?

CBAM stacks randomly oriented carbon-fiber sheets with Nylon 12 or PEEK powder and consolidates them under heat and pressure. Desktop continuous-fiber printers extrude thermoplastic with a continuous tow you can path along a load. Heskin and colleagues measured 206.4 MPa tensile on CBAM Carbon/PEEK coupons. That is sheet architecture, not a steered fiber skeleton on a bench.

Can a desktop continuous-fiber printer replace a CBAM 25 production cell?

No. The CBAM 25 is an industrial sheet-lamination cell aimed at CNC- and molding-scale composite parts, including a company claim of support for up to 10,000 drone bodies a month at Rock Island Arsenal. Desktop continuous-fiber machines print polymer-matrix parts with a designed tow path in a few hundred millimeters. Different architecture, envelope, and qualification path.

Fibricate's Place in This Story

Impossible Objects’ press-and-sheet cell and a desktop composite printer occupy opposite ends of the carbon-fiber conversation. Companies like Fibricate, whose FibreSeeker 3 continuous carbon fiber 3D printer lays thermoplastic with a continuous tow from feedstock such as the continuous carbon fiber spool, sit where shops need designed fiber paths on a bench, not a hot-press stack for drone-rate panels. The $40 million is for factory CBAM. Keep the lanes separate: sheet+press for qualified production composites; continuous tow for fixtures that should never wait on a 25-layer-per-minute cell.

What to Watch Next

Watch how many of the five CBAM 25 orders become a named production line with published yield, and whether Rock Island’s monthly drone-body figure shows up as output rather than capacity. Watch porosity and interface data (Heskin’s pullout and ~26% voids) as Impossible Objects claims higher strength and “minimal” warp. Over the next 12–24 months, expect more composite AM raises that sell rate-plus-fiber against CNC and molding. For polymer shops the watch item is simpler: factory carbon-fiber additive is eating some tooling and some airframes. Your printer still earns its keep on the steered-fiber aids that make those lines run.

References & Further Reading

1. Heskin, M., Deuser, B., Schuman, T., Chandrashekhara, K., Bayldon, J., DeGrange, J., Patterson, S., & Levenhagen, N. (2025). Mechanical and Thermal Characterization of Additively Manufactured Carbon/Nylon 12 and Carbon/PEEK Composites. Applied Composite Materials.
2. Dairabayeva, D., Auyeskhan, U., & Talamona, D. (2024). Mechanical Properties and Economic Analysis of Fused Filament Fabrication Continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites. Polymers.
3. Impossible Objects raises $40m to increase production of composite additive manufacturing systems. TCT Magazine. Retrieved September 15, 2026.