UPDATE: "HELP!!! its about the triangle-thingy "

[usafcap1]

Yes, just an example - the eagle is the unit insignia from your unit's web page, and very sharp IMHO.
It also look less 70's then the "new" one.

The below is just one quick example of a proper disc with rockers.

A proper update would respect the lineage of the old patch while making it compliant.

I agree

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Use of the airplane, at least as it appears here, is going to be difficult for a number of reasons, not the least of which include:

1. It'll be impossible to embroider that much detail.
2. Under the Air Force guidelines, it's unacceptable to use a literal airplane shape. Something abstract is fine. Besides, when they change the planes' color scheme again, your emblem is dead.
3. Because the bottom half of the plane is blue, you can't put it on a blue background without outlining the whole thing ("color on color," which heralds call "blazoning").

And the shield over the eagle presents problems:
1. The shield isn't a service-appropriate shape.
2. Use of the propeller-triangle insigne is redundant to every other device you'll wear on your uniform, and it's unnecessary. Besides, if we use the AF heraldry guidelines as a guide, as we really should, it's verboten for reasons enunciated by others above (the same argument — that it's a heraldic device already used by higher command — could be used to nix the bird, too).

Also, since "Semper Vigilans" is the motto of the whole organization, it's unnecesary to recapitulate it here. If your unit has its own slogan/motto, that's acceptable to use, but not the overall CAP motto. And I'd be hesitant to use a charter number, in the event that would change.

I'd strongly suggest thinking more about your unit and your location when you draw up a new emblem. What makes your unit different from every other is where you are, not what you do (since all squadrons do the same things). What's special about where you are? And try to think in abstract terms about that, unless it's something that will never change (like mountains, a monument that's relevant, et al).

[Eclipse]

Just as an FYI - that was a 10-minute 1/2-butted example I threw together.

As to the detail, not only can embroidery machines render that level, it's pretty common.  That aircraft wouldn't even be a challenge,
though I wouldn't use it as-is without styling it.  I don't actually even like it the way its located.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Really? The one-thread-wide blue stripes on the wings? Just because the technology might exist doesn't mean it's worth doing. After all, how many people twist type in some Microsoft app thinking it's "good design"?

Good design = simple. The more intricate, the more that gets lost in the details. But at that, if you want something for the long term, you don't want to use an exact airplane, anyway. How many times has CAP changed livery?

One thing that may also be worth a look, and it's a finer point, but which way is the eagle looking and which way is the plane flying? Right to left, versus left to right, can also have a heraldic significance. Also, be careful the plane's not flying downward, which would have a negative impact (no pun intended).

[RiverAux]

Is the CAP plane getting ready to strafe the eagle?

[jimmydeanno]

Of interest, about simplicity: http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2011/10/how-simple-is-too-simple/

[dogboy]

That really does look like a Nazi eagle, or the current DFR eagle for that matter.

[Eclipse]

Really? The one-thread-wide blue stripes on the wings? Just because the technology might exist doesn't mean it's worth doing. After all, how many people twist type in some Microsoft app thinking it's "good design"?

So again, that wouldn't be the art I'd use, the aircraft would have to be stylized, etc., but you could do it.

Also, a patch isn't the only place a unit or activity insignia is used, so IMHO, you design the logo, and then deal with various medium. Letterhead, signage,
coins, etc., all need high detail with good color contrast.  One of the reasons we have so many substandard, unimaginative insignia in CAP is because
people design to the tools instead of vice-versa.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

No, you design an emblem that's readable at any size.

AT&T went through that sort of many-sizes-for-many-needs debacle when the "Death Star" logo (some called it "American Ball" at the time, since AT&T trotted out a short-lived new name, "American Bell") was introduced in 1984 to replace the beautifully simple Saul Bass 1969 Bell System logo system. If you used the 1984 logo at 1/4" in diameter, you used a version of the logo with X number of bars; if it got bigger, the number of bars increased. After several years of confusion, they wised up and changed it to an eight-bar version that could run in either AT&T blue, black or (in reverse) white. Then with the SBC takeover came a 3D logo that could be reproduced at any size, though a black-and-white version definitely had to be made available (that's no surprise; it's common). One design covered every size.

When you design an emblem, consideration should be made for one-color printing. And to repeat what you said, Eclipse, if the color version would reproduce poorly in black-and-white, you have a color values issue that should be considered again anyway.

In Civil Air Patrol, as in Air Force heraldry, the emblem is designed once. Flexibility should be taken into consideration, though frankly, there are very few times when a squadron emblem manifests itself in any other way than a patch. It might be on a letterhead (smaller size, of course), but it's rarely going to become a two-foot-wide vinyl decal. If it does, though, you'd better be sure you drew it the first time in Illustrator and not in Photoshop!

And here in Civil Air Patrol, just as in most places in real life, don't count on anyone else knowing which variant is used at which size. In CAP, you're lucky if they don't use it upside-down. (There's my cheap shot of the night.)

PART TWO

Eclipse, you say people design to the tools. That may be a problem. But what I see as an evolving problem is that it's too easy to rely on existing symbology rather than thinking critically about the unit an emblem reflects. We know why CAP-USAF uses existing symbols -- the heraldry is designed to show that CAP-USAF bridges a gap and maintains a bond between CAP and Ma Blue. However...

Nevada Wing's new emblem, while an improvement from the old "I got nuthin'" school of design, is modeled after the CAP-USAF emblem using existing designs. Florida's last one was borrowed, too. Mississippi's and Georgia's aren't much different. All of them unoriginal to both the organizations they represent and to themselves. They borrow too much from existing emblems and don't say anything much about their wings. Georgia's just borrows the (new) state flag (until they change it again). Florida's last one used the seal, which wasn't even the original proposal (it was supposed to be the WWII emblem with a "Florida" arc). Mississippi's takes part of the CAP seal, the state logo from license plates, a map silhouette and mashes them all together in Clip Art Hell. Never mind the eagle's impaled with the prop-and-triangle. Nevada? Looks like no one could come to an agreement, so they just settled on a couple of cliches and called it a day. Oh, and Pennsylvania has an alternate emblem, a shield that a third-grader apparently designed with MacPaint (couldn't they think of the Liberty Bell at least? Flag, airplane shining black light, huh?).

However, Illinois Wing got it right. Not only did they adapt to the Air Force modified-boiler shield, they carted their longtime heraldry over. I'd like to see others do that, instead of throw their heritage out the window, and definitely instead of borrowing heavily from someone else. West Virginia's emblem would work well in the shield, as would Ohio's, Pennsylvania's, New Mexico's and most of the others.

Florida could've done it with the gator, which is missed in the rank and file, but the new emblem (full disclosure: I didn't design it, but worked with the designer to make a vector image of it using IOH colors) reflects some thought as to the wing, its missions and its raison d'etre. While I might've done it differently, it at least reflects some additional contemplation.

In a nutshell, if you have to rely on someone else's emblem to make yours work, generally, you're doing it wrong. You're using a crutch. THINK! What makes your unit different from everyone else? We all do the same things, for the most part. We don't have units that perform certain designated functions, like Ma Blue. So you have to look at your own locale, its aviation heritage and its Civil Air Patrol history. Think hard, force yourself to think of multiple ideas, find people you can trust for feedback. Find artists, others interested in heraldry (oh, those SCA reenactors are all geeked up on this stuff -- know any?), typographers, historians whose brains you can pick.

One more thing... the only other niggling problem with the new ones is that no one has been able to shape the type right in the scroll, making it all look off-balance. That's easily solved, if you're willing to take a little more time and work with the type. Most people (and many self-styled designers) can't do it; either they don't have the patience or the typographic background for it.

Holy cow, it's 3:45 a.m. and I realized I'm on a soapbox. I have some credibility: I've designed/redrawn emblems in this organization, logo packages for companies, even a few newspaper nameplates. I'm not OCD about it, but it's jarring to see where someone missed an opportunity.

If I've offended anyone, I apologize; this will come across reading like a mini-lecture, I'll bet, but for those who haven't yet taken the plunge or are considering it, there's some nuggets here for would-be designers.

[SarDragon]

Bravo!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: