DarkSarcasm

A cap would be cool too, I'd wear one :thumb_up: (wear it to the beach, advertise this site ) Wouldn't be too difficult either, just need the logo and name on the front and maybe the web address on the back and go to one of those places that does embroidery for company uniforms and stuff, get a whole pile done and put them in the shop... With the individualised sticker thing, what if you just had a generator that generated the custom artwork which you could download and either print yourself, take to a photo place or somewhere and get it done on photo paper or get printed on a sticker (depending on what you wanted it for...)? Just an idea :)

I see my sticker plans have been hijacked to try and get us to all advertise this spotty orange aircraft.... This, however, sounds like an awesome idea, but how would we get them printed (thinking of cost and pain for individual printing etc)?

If you have Windows, I use one called VSO image resizer. I can't remember where I downloaded it from (google it I guess) but I do know it was definitely free :)

Defy Gravity. Go flying! www.recreationalflying.com :thumb_up:?

I like it, but I'm thinking it might be slightly long for a bumper sticker - need a smaller font to fit it on so make it harder to read. I like these two as well, they're short (so easy to see/read in traffic) and fun (like RecFlying). As I said in an earlier post, really need help with designing the artwork to send to the printers since I am not particularly experienced with photoshop and such programs. If I design it, it's going to end up BASIC so if anyone has time and experience/talent with these programs, and wants to help, that'd be fantastic. :big_grin:

Just as a note, the silly ones will also have the RecFlying URL on them somewhere, don't worry about that :)

You do realise we charge for emails as well? :big_grin:

Why not send a quick email to all the RA-Aus schools listed on the RA-Aus website just telling them about the site and what you offer for them? That way you can address it to whoever owns the school or the CFI, rather than members passing on a business card or something to someone at the school who promises they'll pass it on but might forget because they get too busy etc. And the person you contact can contact you directly with any questions. The worst they can do is ignore it or say no, and it wouldn't take THAT long to send out a mass email I imagine so you don't lose too much (plus emails are free and enviro friendly!)... :)

Is there anyone on here who is experienced/good with designing programs such as Photoshop? I can have a stab at it but it's going to all be pretty basic if I do it because I'm not really experienced with those programs. So if there's someone on here who's got experience and doesn't mind helping out, that would be fantastic :)

I'm like that too but I'm trying to appeal to what lots of people would want :) If people want a sticker like this, tell me

Have to admit I kind of like this one: Cars are for kids... bumper stickers from Zazzle.com.au Maybe we can think of something similar? Ok, the current plan is to do 1-2 sensible ones and one silly one, now we just need to decide what everyone would like. A couple of sensible suggestions that have been made seem to be popular: I fly for FUN www.recreationalflying.com and Talk flying at recreationalflying.com I agree that some of the silly ones may be seen as promoting some unsafe flying/non-PC ideas, but here are a few suggestions: Alcohol gets you drunk, Flying gets you high "I only go in cars to get to airports" Got altitude? Fly it Like You Stole it Real planes have props If you think I drive fast, you should see me fly! Break the law of gravity. Go flying!

:thumb_up:

So you reckon we could have more than one design and put them in the shop and let people choose?

We want this sticker to advertise the awesomeness that is this site, yes? Well if you think about bumper stickers you've seen and you really remember, are they normal serious ones or are they ones that are pretty silly and gave you a good laugh while you were sitting in traffic? Just a thought...

I have been challenged by Ian to get this bumper sticker idea off the ground, so here I go... The plan is to design and print a bumper sticker that will be sold in Clear Prop for cost + postage. The first thing is to decide what the sticker should look like/say. First option is something like the one in this thread - which is basically the RecFlying logo/banner with our usernames on it. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get individualised stickers printed though (opinions?) The second option is something sensible, such as these: Recreational flying - come for a spin! I fly on the net at Recreationalflying.net Come fly with me .... recreational flying(.net) The third option is something silly and fun (which gets my vote because I'm immature and proud of it :big_grin:) Fly it like you stole it! I'm not speeding, just flying low Flying. Drugs would have been cheaper Alcohol gets you drunk, Flying gets you high You think my driving is bad? You should see my landings! Get high on petrol; fly an ultralight If anyone has any suggestions pass them on, or just tell me which of these you'd like. I guess someone (me?) is going to have to take responsibility for making the final decision, but I want to choose something people will like and be happy to put on their cars/planes/boats/motorbikes/scooters/bicycles/wheelchairs. If we can narrow it down to a few choices, I might be able to make a poll so everyone can vote for the final decision. Also, if anyone knows somewhere that does printing cheaply (preferably in Melbourne since they'll be sent to Ian), please pass the details on. Finally, how many people actually want a bumper sticker (or more than one)? I need to get an idea of numbers to work out how many to get printed. I wonder if I can put this on my resume... "official sticker designer for www.recreationalflying.com"

leading us back to the previous discussion about Queenslander's DNA :stirring pot:

...who dashed off to phone the poisons information centre to find out about cane toad poison. "Heblo, I thneed thelp" he cried into the phone, but alas the person on the other end couldn't understand him. Ditdah decided to try morse code instead...

...who likes to chew... ==== Still cracking up at the image of Slarti's cheetah being stalked by the Bush Tucker man

Out of curiosity for the instructors out there, would your choice of method to teach vary if you knew your student was going to eventually transfer to GA? It sounds from comments on here that the 'point and power' technique is better for the heavier GA planes (true or false?) so, if you knew that your student was (or wasn't) eventually going to fly GA as well, would that affect which method you taught them? (I'd argue that it doesn't, but I'm curious...) I had both explained to me as well :thumb_up: Really? Interesting to know...

Pfft, don't worry, I think my strike rate would be a fair bit worse than yours if I hadn't had my instructor sitting there ready to save us (he's not doing that much at all now though :big_grin:)

I don't really see why there's so much debate, when it all comes down to it we're all doing the same thing. We're all using a combination of power and elevator to control our approach path and descent to come to a safe landing where we can reuse the aeroplane. We may have different thought processes when we're doing it, but essentially we're doing the same thing. For instance, clearly Qwerty and I think different things during the approach path but we're both clearly doing the right thing with the power/elevator to come to a safe and effective landing (more often for Qwerty than me at the moment, but I'm working on it! ) So, despite the fact we have different techniques/thought processes, we're both doing the same thing - a combination of elevator and power. We're all flying planes safely and properly, does it matter what technique we use to do so? :big_grin:

To be honest, I'm a little confused by the level of debate going on here. Ignoring glide approaches (where you don't have a throttle to worry about anyway), when on approach you use a combination of throttle and elevator to keep on approach path. Let's say I'm on approach in my Jab and I'm a bit low, a bit below the approach path. Now, being a 'point and power' sort, I would add a bit of power (to maintain my airspeed) and raise the nose using the elevator to climb and rejoin the approach path. If I was the other sort, I'd add power to climb and use elevator to maintain my airspeed. As far as I can tell (in my comparative inexperience to most on here) I'm doing the same thing -adding power and raising the nose. It's all a question of how I think about it. Basically it seems to me we're all doing the same thing, it's just how we think about it. And with the windshear example, personally I think instinct and self-preservation would take over. If it were me suddenly in danger of ending up in a tree, I'd immediately think 'power up and raise nose and let's get OUT of here!'. I'm not thinking 'power for speed, raise nose for height', I'm just instrictively knowing I'm going to need BOTH to do what I need to do. Does it really matter that much which one I associate with which thing (airspeed or height), isn't it more important that I know I need both to get out of there? Out of curiosity for the instructors out there, when teaching approach do you tell your students that the other technique exists or just talk about the one you teach? When I was briefed about approach I was told about the other technique (not actually taught it, but told about it), so I knew it existed but have been taught the 'point and power' technique. Also, don't worry gang, I'm not going to suddenly change my technique because of what people are saying on here, so you don't need to worry about affecting the mind of an 'impressionable student' or anything

I don't know about other people, but I wouldn't go straight for the elevator (and, as I said, I've been taught throttle=airspeed, elevator=altitude). I'd apply a fair chunk of power (no point moving the elevator if there's no power to actually do anything) and pull the stick back - basically, I'd power up and go around and have another stab at it. If I was dropping like a rock I'd immediately go for the throttle. I'm sure some here will say 'ah ha! see, you're clearly doing throttle for altitude, you just THINK you're doing it for airspeed!' but that's not quite right either. Obviously, if you're dropping like a rock, you're going to need power to either get out of there or correct it so, to me at least, it would be fairly instinctive to add power to get a bit of power/speed up and then/at the same time pull the stick back to gain height. Would anyone really go 'oh dear I can't touch the throttle because I've been taught elevator for altitude so that's what I have to do'? It seems people are saying that you have to do elevator OR throttle when really on approach you're constantly doing a combination of both.

My landings are working at the moment! (let's see how they go after this Christmas break ) Ok, how about this, the method I'm being taught works for my instructor (is that better Turbo? :))