Dimensions of Mach V 30

[4sak3n]

Greetings everyone

I am looking into purchasing my first BCD and am very drawn to the clean, simplicity of a bp/w setup. So I have been investigating as much as possible. As you can imagine, the heated ... erm, "discussions" with regards to jacket BCDs versus bp/w rigs have provided me with lots of information.

I am now starting to look at what each of the different brands have to offer. I'm very interested in comparing the size of the OxyCheq Mach V 30 wing to other wings however I can't find any sizing information. Just what are the dimensions (width and length) of the Mach V when it is deflated?

Any stats or comparisons you guys can give would be greatly appreciated.

 

[MBH]

Deflated- the wing measures 16"W x 23"L

Inflated- the measurments are 13"W x 23"L

 

[Kern]

Any stats or comparisons you guys can give would be greatly appreciated.

DSS Torus 26lb.

13" w x 25" l.

3" centre panel.

 

[RJP]

Deflated- the wing measures 16"W x 23"L

Inflated- the measurments are 13"W x 23"L

To be clear, the inflated measurement is somewhat meaningless without having the wing mounted onto a specific plate with a specific tank.

Unless you plan to somehow use the inflated wing all by itself.

A fully inflated Mach V on a Dive-Rite plate with an AL80 on a single-tank adapter will measure out to be a different width than the same wing on a DSS plate mounted directly to an HP 130. Why? One tank is wider and more closely mounted to a plate that is flatter, effectively altering the overall shape/size of the wing when fully inflated, when compared to the other set up.

Think "balloon squeezed in hand" to visuallize the concept.

 

[Nemrod]

The Mach V is very narrow. I will post this pic briefly and then I am going to remove it because it is not mine--that is me--but I don't own the pic (of me). Note there is very little air in the wing and there is no taco effect. Thankfully I made the OxyCheq logo black now and now of course they come that way--lol.



The same wing on the same 7.0 inch diamter LP Faber 85 tank but inflated.

N

 

[cool_hardware52]

To be clear, the inflated measurement is somewhat meaningless without having the wing mounted onto a specific plate with a specific tank.

Unless you plan to somehow use the inflated wing all by itself.

A fully inflated Mach V on a Dive-Rite plate with an AL80 on a single-tank adapter will measure out to be a different width than the same wing on a DSS plate mounted directly to an HP 130. Why? One tank is wider and more closely mounted to a plate that is flatter, effectively altering the overall shape/size of the wing when fully inflated, when compared to the other set up.

Think "balloon squeezed in hand" to visuallize the concept.

I agree with part of this. The plate and tank and STA or no STA will impact what the effective capacity is. Flatter tanks and large diameter wings will limit the volume more than steeply bent plates and smaller bottles. That's exactly why we rate our wings in the assembled state, using 8 inch tanks and the bolt on weight plates. That the most constrained condition.

Your balloon analogy fails because balloons can stretch and wings generally do not.

Keep in mind that air is still about .08 lbs/cuft and water is still about 63 lbs / cuft. two wings displace similar volumes of water one can expect that they will be similar in size. Capacity is Capacity.

Tobin

 

[RJP]

Your balloon analogy fails because balloons can stretch and wings generally do not.

That is the very nature of an analogy!

Analogy: a form of reasoning which draws a comparison in one specific respect between two or more things that are known to be otherwise dissimilar.

"Momma always said 'Life is like a box of chocolates...'
but that analogy fails because chocolate melts in your
hand on a hot summer day, and life doesn't."

The power of an analogy as an instructive tool is that it leverages the inherent incongruence between two ideas/concepts/items to aid in making the desired point. The downside to analogies is that most people get so caught up in "they're not exactly the same" details that they fail to see the big picture.

By your limited definition of an analogy, ALL analogies fail. Unless you want to say "A wing is kind of like a wing..."

 

[cool_hardware52]

That is the very nature of an analogy!

Analogy: a form of reasoning which draws a comparison in one specific respect between two or more things that are known to be otherwise dissimilar.

The problem here is the very area of comparison you attempted to make between a balloon and a wing is in fact dissimilar.

If you constrain a constrain a balloon made from a stretchable material, such as latex, it can distort by stretching. Wing do not stretch.

That's probably why you see clowns making balloon animals and not "Wing" animals

Tobin

 

[ZzzKing]

The problem here is the very area of comparison you attempted to make between a balloon and a wing is in fact dissimilar.

If you constrain a constrain a balloon made from a stretchable material, such as latex, it can distort by stretching. Wing do not stretch.

That's probably why you see clowns making balloon animals and not "Wing" animals

Tobin

That and the fact that balloons are a few cents apiece and wings are a few hundred$$$ apiece.

 

[RJP]

The problem here is the very area of comparison you attempted to make between a balloon and a wing is in fact dissimilar.

If you constrain a constrain a balloon made from a stretchable material, such as latex, it can distort by stretching. Wing do not stretch.

That's probably why you see clowns making balloon animals and not "Wing" animals

Tobin

Let's try the "duckies and horsies" version of the analogy:

Just as the shape of a balloon determines it's overall measurment for any given volume of air (such as when the shape of said balloon, when inflated, may be altered from time to time, as in the case wherein, but not limited to, such occasions as said balloon may be squeezed by someone's hand) so too does the shape of a wing determine it's overall measurement for any given volume of air (such as when the shape of said wing, when, from time to time, may be constrained by extrinsic forces and/or situations; as in the case where the tank and plate to which the wing may be mounted tend to limit or otherwise constrain the shape of the wing in terms of length, width and or height) irrespective of the inherent differences in the relative elasticity of the material of which the balloon is constructed when compared to the inelasticity of the material ordinarilly utilized in the construction of wings.

Yeah, you're right. Acknowledging and placing the emphasis on the DIFFERENCES between the two items rather than the SIMILARITIES really enhances the illustrative qualities of the overall communication.