Hello, all.
I like all of the various patch ideas, and I thank folks who took the time to make a graphic of their ideas. I truly appreciate it and am grateful.
With regard to some fine points of designs, the patches are 3 inches in diameter, and I have in the past run into some difficulty in getting plane shapes to turn out correctly if the planes are too small on that scale. Here are some examples and the reason why the Operation Husky patches have taken so long to get out (basically, going back and forth with the patch company to try to get the plane outlines to look reasonable).
This one looks like the C.205 has a bite taken out of the top:
This one also looks odd (with the P-40 looking somewhat ****-like, unfortunately):
This one looks the least odd of the various attempts (there are more than I've shown above) and will likely be the one we go with. Looks decent:
When aircraft are larger (or the outline is less subject to small outline changes making a big impact on a person's perception, such as outlines from top or bottom vs. from the side), such as the following, things are easier to render nicely and to get produced:
Here is an example of one where the planes are smaller, but it is an outline of the top (vs. the side). The planes are recognizable given the context, but intermediate in terms of outline fidelity taken alone out of context. Also, this one, too, took several iterations with the patch company to get the planes looking decent instead of goofy:
As a general rule, I think it's better to stick to planes that have wingspan or length of 1/2 a patch diameter or more; or if you are OK with some amount of generic look to them and are using top view and not side view, perhaps as low as 1/3 patch diameter. Anything less than that, and you're pushing it and must at least use generic airplane shapes; and it's a lot more hassle for me to get it produced (much more going back and forth on design with the patch company).