I see. On the other hand, everyone in this thread didn't read that other thread. Perhaps you should consider saying it differently.
Been away from SB for quite awhile, so I was unavailable to add any heat to that longstanding debate.
In reading it, a few things come to mind.
First off, for the gentleman who mentioned that they had tried a Knighthawk
and characterized it as a BP instead of a BP/W, this is an incorrect categorization: the labels of BC and BP/W insinuates that the latter is rear-inflation only and thus in order to be logically orthogonal (and thus have validity), the former has to be a non-wing...ie a Jacket style bladder (contains inflation on its front as well as its back). The Knighthawk has no inflation on front.
Thus, the Knighthawk is a "BP/Wing" configuration (and it also has a hard backpack also makes the BP part more obvious). Granted, it is AFAIC a pretty lousy product, so I don't dispute your dislike for it - - I dislike it too - - but it can't be because it has a Jacket style bladder, because it doesn't have a Jacket Style bladder.
Second, there seems to have been some generalizations of BP/W's being able to hold a tank more securely, and that this is suggested as a common shortcoming attributable to all {Jacket} BC's - - sorry, but
historically, both Jacket bladders and Wing bladders have been available in both hard- and soft- backpack configurations.
Thus, this anti-{Jacket} BC comment is actually a critique of hard-backpack versus soft-backpack configurations, not the bladder configuration, and is not germane to the discussion. As was also stated by one of the gentlemen,
'correlation is not causation', so even though soft backpacks are more commonly found in jacket bladder styles, it is not a necessary design attribute (nor is it necessary for a wing, either).
Third, use cases can & do make huge differences. For example, I'm personally getting ready to switch back from a Wing to a Jacket bladder style because with my heavy UW camera system, I am very reliably "face-dunked" on all surface floats, warm or cold. And I still have my old centroid analysis for those who need a
clear picture of the basic physics.
On the revived subject of 'most' streamlined, this is a longstanding myth that has some roots from the more pyrotechnic elements of the Florida cave diving community. Probably ten years ago now after hearing this bravado one too many times, I offered to pull a couple of professional affiliation strings to get some these
'ours is the most streamlined' dive gear setups into Stevens Institute of Technology (SIT) as a Senior Design project, to quantitatively measure drag in their water tanks...and the manufacturer's rep backed out like a scalded dog. That right there was reason enough for me to never recommend their brand.
As such, my position here remains a very cynical "Show Me the Data", with an acknowledgement that personal use cases are more than enough to bias test data ... for example, I'd not be at all surprised if something as simple as the diver's head orientation (up -vs- down) is significant enough to overshadow brand-to-brand variations.
Finally, on Mythbusters, I've seen them make significant factual errors in one of my technical areas of expertise, so I'm not particularly confident that they would get any of this non-explosive scuba stuff correct, and that would probably do more damage than good to the sport of Scuba Diving. As such, I'd prefer that these boys stay away from the topic area; YMMV.
-hh
