Are they deliberately trying to make this Look like a boxy RC plane...
I know nice curves are expensiGet rid of the sharp edges and see the aerodynamics improve drastically....
Ok if they want to flat pack it all, straight sheets make sense (also cheaper to mould, but the moulds, are made once and used many times... Notice the wing is smooth, and aerodynamic (of course) , well why is the fuselage then just a couple of flat slabs thrown together.... transitions make an aero package... (I am full of praise for the concept, though the execution may be lacking...)
Also, kit planes are notoriously unfinished because the average "builder/storer" buys one on a dream, without any experience building planes (they are usually "pilots", but not always.)... all kit plane builders need to start small.. an RC plane looking like this, is a start, then make one on 2-3 metre wing span (fix up the obvious imperfections), full size is only 4 times as big with about the same types of components (more of them and bigger)... Once the builder has done a couple of smaller versions they they may be ready for the full size one.... Without dedication they (any versions) never get finished... Even a small RC plane takes time to do well (Or you can buy a foamy from hobbyking).

What a great idea! we need more people in the world who's sole aim in life is to help others enjoy the things you enjoy and not simply make a fat profit for themself.
I hope this project succeeds.

MD, did you miss the point? This is an open-source plane - if you don't like the design, use your own expertise to improve it. In the mean time, I don't think it's that boxy, and large curved parts imply large, complex, expensive moulds that are not cost-effective for a one-off self-builder.
It would be nice to see more open-source hardware projects - washing machines spring to mind since most mainstream manufacturers seem to produce overpriced, corner-cutting, over-complex, planned-obsolescent, de-toleranced junk.
And I think I've used up my quota of hyphens.

Nice idea but I don't think they understand the time allocation issues when building a kitplane. Wing ribs are already cut out prior to delivery, so the example stated in the article is a bit of a red herring. If you buy a high quality 'quick-build' kit from an established company like Vans, or Glasair, the basic airframe can be finished quite quickly. The real time and effort comes in fitting the engine, wiring, fitting out the cockpit, and bringing exterior surfaces up to a high quality. In addition, safety issues such as weight and weight distribution have to be addressed carefully while the build is ongoing. Even if this particular effort does not succeed 100%, I hope they'll contribute to some understanding of the process to a wider audience, and through that alone, they may make some worthwhile contributions to the field.

Looks like, with the right materials, and some missile rails (one reason for open source is mods and accessories), this would make for a nice, low radar cross-section, UAV that civilians can use as a second amendment ownership right to defend against a rogue, UAV-crazy, Fed. But it also could be built in a cave in {pick your favorite "terrorist" place}, so someone call DHS and have them shut this effort down asap. If a civilian is building something like this, out of sight of everyone, they must be up to no good and stopped.

Having built two airplanes myself I can honestly say this is pure jibberish. It is quite obvious they have never done anything other than play on their computer. They have no clue about what the challenges are in building an airplane, or what the design compromises are in an airplane. If you really want a "Light-sport" airplane, they don't get any better performing, or easier to build than the Van's RV-12.

Kenny,
Please read our website and forums before making such uninformed and quite nasty comments. I have two aircraft projects under my belt and Jeffrey has over 30 years designing aircraft. Other volunteers have built, or are building aircraft. It is easy to sit back and criticize, it is quite another to get off one's ass and do something positive.
John Nicol

It seems like an interesting concept. To the naysayers: Isn't this essentially how the first plane was built? A group of people decided to test their knowledge of design and engineering to create something new. Isn't that really how all innovation begins?
Now for my own naysaying:
How the FAA will treat such aircraft. I'm sure it would qualify for E-LSA however, because it is open source, what is to keep someone from altering their design so that it would not meet FAA standards? Current kit planes are built with those requirements in mind. So I'm curious to see how those involved with the project handle that and how the will communicate that to potential builders.
Further, MakerPlane intends to use 3D printing for creating portions of the airframe. 3D printing and 3D printers are not an inexpensive technology. I'm not 100% up on what they cost, but it makes me wonder if it might be more cost effective for a potential builder to look at a kit plane from Vans or one of the other manufacturers.
On the whole though, this seems like a really awesome concept.

You guys are re-inventing the wheel!
http://www.cozyaircraft.com/
Burt Rutan beat you to it 40 years ago!
http://www.opencanard.com/index.php/Main_Page

I agree with Kenny on this. Whilst I applaud anyone trying to make airplane building quicker and cheaper using modern technologies, most kits these days have the ribs already formed and even if they aren't, it doesn't take long to make one. Using a CNC machine implies that the Makerplane uses milled from solid (highly unlikely) or cut from sheet alloy, which will still require some folding and bending and rivetting.
I wish them well, but maybe some more research from the writer would have helped...