Okay it's snowing outside and my plans for today have been cancelled so I took my backplate and wing apart unzipped it and took a look. I have the Oxycheq Mach V 30. I also pulled out the Hog 32 and compare them side-by-side.
As advertized, the Oxycheq has a very small profile, long and narrow as buddhasummer noted. But it is also deeper, more dimensional, with a wider side panel. The material is notably thicker and so is less pliable.
Bladder. The bladder deflated does curve up the side panel of the wing but does not pleat or fold on the sides. At the bottom and top there is some creasing of the bladder but no true overlap.
Inflated, the bladder enlarges to fill the contour of the wing nicely. The sides of the bladder are only large enough to completely fill the diminsions of the wing. There is absolutely no folding or creasing. It is a near perfect fit. The ends do have a small crease but nothing that should impair deflation. The bottom corners also have a crease where the bladder makes a fairly sharp turn to the sides but again, nothing that looks like it would trap or impair deflation. This test was done with no plate or tank attachment. There is no way this bladder was made for a different wing. Inflated it is almost perfectly sized for the wing.
As for folding the 30, again buddhasummer is right on target. The best way to travel with the wing is lying flat. It can be folded vertically then held in place with ties or objects but there is no point to this. It is narrow enough to just fit flat in almost any type of luggage, checked or carryon. Interestingly, while the Hog wing material is thinner and more pliable, there is a rigid center panel that also negates almost any benefit to folding.
