Hollis New S Series 25# Wing Dimensions?

[mahjong]

Anyone have these dimensions, with the wing fully inflated? The only dimensions I have been able to find online are 25" x 17", with no indication if this was inflated or not. Either way, I cannot figure out how a 25# wing can have such large dimensions, esp when the center area seems so small (at least from the pictures). Thanks.

 

[Kern]

As a comparison, I have a 26lb wing with a 3" centre panel. It's dimensions fully inflated are 25" x 12.5" at its widest point.

My 40lb singles wing, with a 3" centre panel, is 26" x 17.5"

 

[mahjong]

As a comparison, I have a 26lb wing with a 3" centre panel. It's dimensions fully inflated are 25" x 12.5" at its widest point.

My 40lb singles wing, with a 3" centre panel, is 26" x 17.5"

Thanks. If the center panel on the Hollis is a bit wider than 3" then the 25# wing is not too far out of whack I suppose.

I realize that making wings longer and narrower eliminates tank crush and tacoing, respectively, but the longer wings can rub on the ground when the tank is standing upright while mounting the rig (my Halcyon 40# Eclipse had fraying along the bottom seams).

The shape of the Hollis S-Series is like the Halcyon Eclipses--shaped like a ship's hull, being a bit wider at the top. This makes floating vertically on the surface very stable--no tipping this way or that way from having the most buoyant part of the wing down by your waist (as with the traditional triangular shape). But for the hull-shaped wings to work well in keeping your head above the water you need to mount them a tad lower, and when the wing runs long this leaves it rubbing on the ground.

 

[Pickled]

Anyone have these dimensions, with the wing fully inflated? The only dimensions I have been able to find online are 25" x 17", with no indication if this was inflated or not. Either way, I cannot figure out how a 25# wing can have such large dimensions, esp when the center area seems so small (at least from the pictures). Thanks.

24" long by 14" wide in the center. About 13.5" wide at the bottom and a little over 14" at the top. 5" center panel.

 

[cool_hardware52]

shaped like a ship's hull, being a bit wider at the top. This makes floating vertically on the surface very stable--no tipping this way or that way from having the most buoyant part of the wing down by your waist (as with the traditional triangular shape). But for the hull-shaped wings to work well in keeping your head above the water you need to mount them a tad lower, and when the wing runs long this leaves it rubbing on the ground.

Any single tank diver that needs to inflate their wing all the way down to their kidneys is *way* over weighted.

Properly weighted a single tank diver should need only a puff of gas in their wing at the surface.

Any portion of any BC that's above the water provides no lift, as it displaces no water.

Tobin

 

[mahjong]

Any single tank diver that needs to inflate their wing all the way down to their kidneys is *way* over weighted.

Properly weighted a single tank diver should need only a puff of gas in their wing at the surface.

Any portion of any BC that's above the water provides no lift, as it displaces no water.

Tobin

Your points all make sense. But I was trying to emphasize the issue of stability on the surface. It's possible to be properly weighted and securely floating on the surface with only a few puffs of air in your wing/BC, but not exactly easily steady and stable, no? I'm effortlessly floating when I'm only very slightly leaned back and not kicking at all with my feet or pushing or pulling this way or that. I dove for some time a very old Dive Rite Junior Wing, which was the traditional triangular shape and had the stretchy nylon shell (not the rugged dernier cordura stuff). I think it had in the neighborhood of 40# of lift (a bit too much lift, though I do dive a single steel 95). I recall on the surface typically trying to lay back on it so that it floated me like a raft, otherwise I was always rocking this way and that, and esp tipping forward--no big problem, but not exactly effortless floating. With my Halcyon Eclipse (also 40#, again too much), I can float rock solid in a verticle position (I add some trim weight on the outermost center part of lower tank band using a small XS Scuba trim weight pocket). In short, the air in the Eclipse that's out of the water (top-most part of the wing) does displace water beginning at the point where the air-filled portion of the wing meets the water, ie, at the surface. Some of this air-filled portion of course breaks the surface, depending on how negative you are. But this form of displacement--where the air-filled portion of the BC is mainly out of the water--does keep you from sinking by dispacing water at the surface--and if you are properly weighted, as you stated, you shouldn't need much air to keep you afloat. My point was that this form of displacement floats you on the surface in a more stable manner than when most of the air in your wing/BC is trapped below the surface, because of the shape of the wing and/or because you are carrying too much weight. Imagine if a ship's hull were shaped like a Dive Rite Venture wing? I should think that that ship would be very unstable in floating on the surface. That ship would be very inclined to tip over and, if it were air-tight like a wing, it would still float on the surface but upside down, with the hull on top.

This is merely my uneducated assessment, combined with some experience. I could be completely wrong.

 

[mahjong]

24" long by 14" wide in the center. About 13.5" wide at the bottom and a little over 14" at the top. 5" center panel.

Got it. Thanks! That makes more sense.

I take it you own the wing? How do you like it?

 

[cool_hardware52]

Your points all make sense. But I was trying to emphasize the issue of stability on the surface. It's possible to be properly weighted and securely floating on the surface with only a few puffs of air in your wing/BC, but not exactly easily steady and stable, no?

Yes. Very steady, very stable. The center of mass is below the center of lift.

Simple really.

Tobin

 

[mahjong]

Yes. Very steady, very stable. The center of mass is below the center of lift.

Simple really.

Tobin

Ah yes, I see..."The center of mass is below the center of lift. Simple really." Always inspiring to find a philosophe in the BP/W business ;-). For the more simple minded like me, I will spend the rest of my evening Googling "The center of mass is below the center of lift" and trying to read up on what is for you "simple really." Many thanks!

 

[romaf]

As a comparison, I have a 26lb wing with a 3" centre panel. It's dimensions fully inflated are 25" x 12.5" at its widest point.

My 40lb singles wing, with a 3" centre panel, is 26" x 17.5"

How come its THAT thin?!?! The OMS size chart (deflated) is here: OMS Buoyancy Compensator Specifications http://www.OMSdive.com

Are these values correct?!