Apeks Flight

[gxtoast]

Hope this works, have attached the flight and the xtx50 wob. You may want to send an email to gill hook and ask him what is up with the different WOBs.

Hi Ixchin,

It occurred to me that the graph supplied to you from Gill may have been the results from using an XTX FST 1st stage and a Flight 2nd stage regulator. Hence the FST/Flight designation in the REGULATOR TYPE field on the report.

I have sent an email to Tony Gallagher at Apeks, and CC'd Gill, seeking clarification of the matter.

However, if the lower WOB is indeed due to the FST 1st stage, it seems to indicate that the Flight 2nd stage and Flight Octopus can be used with other XTX 1st stages.

I am willing to bet that this is so. In which case, I am very interested in purchasing an FSR 1st stage and the Flight 2nd stages. What a great combination!

Cheers,
Nick

 

[MarkUK]

Hi Nick,

If you want a lightweight reg for travelling, get the Flight. It breathes as well as any other mid-range reg out there in my opinion, if not slightly better, and it has them beat hands down when it comes to lightness.

If weight is not a factor, go for the XTX50. It breathes smoother and, if you swap out all the hoses for Miflex or the Apeks equivalent, it is reasonably lightweight as well, though no Flight.

If weight AND money is not a factor, go for the XTX200, as it is a great reg, especially in its Tungsten finish. The breathe is not that different from an XTX50, to be honest, but if you have the money to burn and want the cool routing of the XTX200's first stage, go for that.

Cheers from the Maldives, time for dinner and then more deco beers...

Mark

 

[gxtoast]

Hi Mark,

I have decided to go for the XTX50/XTX40/XTX-DS4 kit and swap the primary hose for a 7' (210cm) Miflex, keep the hose that comes with the secondary, replace the HP hose with a Miflex, and use a Miflex for the BC hose. Thanks for all your help.

Ixchin, I emailed Tony and here is what he had to say about the two different results of the charts:

Dear Nick,

We are sorry for the confusion. It would appear that the wrong graph was indeed sent to your friend. It was not Gill’s error but a simple human error internally with our computer system. This is in fact an internal graph which was made with a hybrid Flight second stage and (as you correctly surmise) an FST 1st stage. It is not a regulator we sell as a complete unit and this is not a graph which has any relevance to end users.

If you examine the breathing chart of the Flight it is actually a slightly better graph than the hybrid model as the cracking resistance is a little lower and the inhale line is a little smoother. So although the total WOB is a higher number on this rather than the hybrid version the breathe would be a bit smoother. But both graphs show low WOB figures and both would offer a good breathe and one would notice very little difference between the 2 in use.

It is a fact that the Flight second stage can in theory be used with different 1st stages. It has been designed as the lightest regulator in the world as a total unit, but the fitting of the hose to the 1st stage would marry to a 3/8” port. The Flight hose however has a unique fitting to the Flight second stage and so you cannot use the Flight second stage with another hose. Theoretically the Flight second stage and Flight hose can be used with a different 1st stage, but this would not be a CE approved product as the regulator has not been tested with other 1st stages. This would also negate the warranty.

I hope the above clarifies the confusion and we apologise for sending the wrong graph to your friend.

Regards

Tony

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Wow! The Flight second stage cannot be used with a standard regulator hose. That's messed up. What a design mistake.

@gxtoast: I don't blame you for going with the XTX50/40/DS4. That's a good choice...and the second stages will accept standard hose fittings.

 

[MarkUK]

So why is this a design mistake? Apeks set out to build the world's lightest reg for travelling, and one way they eliminated some weight was by developing this tool-less connection between the hose and the second stage, which is all a tough, durable plastic with no metal parts. It is a two-second job to detach/attach the second stage from the hose using nothing more than your fingers and thumbs.

The hose is Apeks' Miflex-style hose, so lightweight and flexible as well.

Why would you want to put a 'normal' hose on to the Flight second stage in the first place? What possible benefit would that have? Let's take a super lightweight regulator that has been designed from the outset to be as light as possible and screw all that up by sticking a normal hose on it. If you are worried about the hose failing while on a trip, just buy a spare Flight hose from Apeks and take it with you.

Mark

 

[laurin]

So why is this a design mistake? Apeks set out to build the world's lightest reg for travelling, and one way they eliminated some weight was by developing this tool-less connection between the hose and the second stage, which is all a tough, durable plastic with no metal parts. It is a two-second job to detach/attach the second stage from the hose using nothing more than your fingers and thumbs.

Detaching/attaching a second stage isn't something you'd be doing very often, so the purpose of this gimmick isn't very clear to me. Also, if it's that easy to detach, I'd be wary of it coming loose when not wanted...

The hose is Apeks' Miflex-style hose, so lightweight and flexible as well.

Why would you want to put a 'normal' hose on to the Flight second stage in the first place? What possible benefit would that have? Let's take a super lightweight regulator that has been designed from the outset to be as light as possible and screw all that up by sticking a normal hose on it. If you are worried about the hose failing while on a trip, just buy a spare Flight hose from Apeks and take it with you.

Well, the "normal" hose configuration is pretty crappy. I'd be willing to trade off some of the "as light as possible" for "a very lightweight reg with sensible hose config".

I do understand how shaving the grams to get the very marketable World's Lightest -moniker would be important for Apeks, but for as a consumer, I don't see a big difference between 500 or 600 grams. That would still be a seriously lightweight setup. Last time I went to Mexico my regs alone were 7kg...

//LN

 

[lxchin]

For me, when travelling, you want acessability to parts. And if you don't have accessability to parts, then at least you know that you are able to borrow spares off your mates or the shop. I have jsut fitted my xtx200/xtx50 octo with miflex. a bit lighter, but the difference miflex hoses makes in terms of flexibility is awesome!
Anyway your xtx50/40/ds4 sounds like something that i would have gone down if i had knownthe 50 breathes the same as the 50!

 

[Bubbletrubble]

So why is this a design mistake? Apeks set out to build the world's lightest reg for travelling, and one way they eliminated some weight was by developing this tool-less connection between the hose and the second stage, which is all a tough, durable plastic with no metal parts. It is a two-second job to detach/attach the second stage from the hose using nothing more than your fingers and thumbs.

I think the fact that the second stage-reg hose junction is tool-less is great. I see this as more of a long-term, hose parts issue, though. Whenever a manufacturer develops a connector or hose that is non-standard, the consumer is going to suffer down the road. In this case, it would have been a much better decision to design the tool-less connector so that it could be slipped over a regular hose nut swivel. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Why would you want to put a 'normal' hose on to the Flight second stage in the first place? What possible benefit would that have?

It gives one flexibility in terms of servicing and repair.

Let's take a super lightweight regulator that has been designed from the outset to be as light as possible and screw all that up by sticking a normal hose on it. If you are worried about the hose failing while on a trip, just buy a spare Flight hose from Apeks and take it with you.

Yes, in fact, you would be a fool not to carry a spare Flight hose in your save-a-dive kit. Miflex hoses are lightweight and abrasion-resistant...but they can fail.
Also, many divers prefer to dive their reg setups with certain hose lengths. Something tells me that if a Flight owner wants to select a non-standard hose length, he is not going to get favorable pricing from Apeks.

 

[scubafanatic]

So why is this a design mistake? Apeks set out to build the world's lightest reg for travelling, and one way they eliminated some weight was by developing this tool-less connection between the hose and the second stage, which is all a tough, durable plastic with no metal parts. It is a two-second job to detach/attach the second stage from the hose using nothing more than your fingers and thumbs.

The hose is Apeks' Miflex-style hose, so lightweight and flexible as well.

Why would you want to put a 'normal' hose on to the Flight second stage in the first place? What possible benefit would that have? Let's take a super lightweight regulator that has been designed from the outset to be as light as possible and screw all that up by sticking a normal hose on it. If you are worried about the hose failing while on a trip, just buy a spare Flight hose from Apeks and take it with you.

Mark

...sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[MarkUK]

Detaching/attaching a second stage isn't something you'd be doing very often, so the purpose of this gimmick isn't very clear to me. Also, if it's that easy to detach, I'd be wary of it coming loose when not wanted...

This 'gimmick', as you call it, is two-fold - one, as I said before, it loses some weight by not having metal fittings between the hose and second stage, and two, when people are putting together their regs for the first time, many will put a spanner on the hose but not on the reg, and will just try and tighten it up by bracing the torque holding on to the reg. With a metal second stage, not such an issue, with a plastic, can be a catastrophe. I have seen the insides of several plastic second stages (from various companies) stripped from people doing this. This tool-less fitting gets rid of any chance of that happening - you just keep tightening it on until it is fitted properly and then it will just keep 'ratcheting' to prevent overtightening. It is easy to get it off when you want, but the chances of it happening accidentally would be slim to none because of the way in which you have to squeeze the locking mechanism to open it.


Well, the "normal" hose configuration is pretty crappy. I'd be willing to trade off some of the "as light as possible" for "a very lightweight reg with sensible hose config".

How is the hose configuration on the Flight pretty crappy? What is a sensible hose configuration to you? Unless you want to stick a long hose on it to go the DIR route, for normal recreational diving, the hose routing on the Flight is extremely good, sending the hoses around the body and over the shoulders much the same as the XTX200 first stage. And the Miflex hoses lend extra flexibility, etc.

Mark