OMS 32lbs single tank wing - any comments ?

[jetfixer]

this might be off the mark, but I'm also considering an OMS wing. Why do they only have one lower dump valve and not one on each side of the horseshoe? any comments?

 

[cool_hardware52]

In my opinion.....


The reason most wings have only one OPV / bottom dump is that they are seen as a failure point, no need for more than the minimum required.

Why aren't all single wings donuts. Donut wings can be built two ways. Single bladder style wings (i.e. no inner bladder, just an outer welded shell) are fairly easy to make in a donut style, but single bladder wings are difficult / impossible to repair, and the shapes possible are more limited.

If one makes a conventional style (i.e. nylon shell with inner urethane bladder) donut style wing the problem is how to install and remove the inner bladder. This requires a zipper that completely encircles the wing. This adds complexity and is difficult to sew. Conventional wings with a outer sewn nylon shell and inner bladder are far easier to repair, and in the worst case the bladder can be replaced.

The shape is a function of the sewn shell, and not a stiff welded urethane coated fabric resulting in finish shapes that are not possible / practical with welded single bladder designs.

Keep in mind that while many will insist that donut wings are vital, no wing currently made for double tanks is a donut, all are "horseshoe" style.

Even with these horeshoe style wings well trained doubles divers are quite capable of maintaining trim, even though most doubles wings have a OPV or bottom dump on one side only.

My guess is that any diver that can successfully use a BackPlate and Wing with doubles will have zero problems with a horseshoe style single wing. Conversely any diver that can only use a donut single wing will likely struggle with doubles.

Regards,



Tobin

 

[mempilot]

You'll understand when you dive the wing. It's not needed.

this might be off the mark, but I'm also considering an OMS wing. Why do they only have one lower dump valve and not one on each side of the horseshoe? any comments?

 

[mempilot]

Excellent explanation.

In my opinion.....


The reason most wings have only one OPV / bottom dump is that they are seen as a failure point, no need for more than the minimum required.

Why aren't all single wings donuts. Donut wings can be built two ways. Single bladder style wings (i.e. no inner bladder, just an outer welded shell) are fairly easy to make in a donut style, but single bladder wings are difficult / impossible to repair, and the shapes possible are more limited.

If one makes a conventional style (i.e. nylon shell with inner urethane bladder) donut style wing the problem is how to install and remove the inner bladder. This requires a zipper that completely encircles the wing. This adds complexity and is difficult to sew. Conventional wings with a outer sewn nylon shell and inner bladder are far easier to repair, and in the worst case the bladder can be replaced.

The shape is a function of the sewn shell, and not a stiff welded urethane coated fabric resulting in finish shapes that are not possible / practical with welded single bladder designs.

Keep in mind that while many will insist that donut wings are vital, no wing currently made for double tanks is a donut, all are "horseshoe" style.

Even with these horeshoe style wings well trained doubles divers are quite capable of maintaining trim, even though most doubles wings have a OPV or bottom dump on one side only.

My guess is that any diver that can successfully use a BackPlate and Wing with doubles will have zero problems with a horseshoe style single wing. Conversely any diver that can only use a donut single wing will likely struggle with doubles.

Regards,



Tobin

 

[jetfixer]

You'll understand when you dive the wing. It's not needed.

Air trappage is not a problem? I ask because I currently use a Seaquest Balance and air trappage is a problem for me. However, I've tried the Zeagle Ranger and didn't have that problem. It never trapped air like my Balance. In short, I was thinking maybe it was just the design of the Balance and that a BP/W setup would work out better and also be more versatile.

 

[mempilot]

Air trappage is not a problem? I ask because I currently use a Seaquest Balance and air trappage is a problem for me. However, I've tried the Zeagle Ranger and didn't have that problem. It never trapped air like my Balance. In short, I was thinking maybe it was just the design of the Balance and that a BP/W setup would work out better and also be more versatile.

I've never had an issue with air trappage. Properly weighted, not much air goes in the bag anyway. In the normal horizontal dive position, the inflator hose can be used, and well as the butt dump. The IH is actually just slightly to the side of centerline and is in a good position to pick up the bouyant gas in the bag from either side.

 

[jetfixer]

I've never had an issue with air trappage. Properly weighted, not much air goes in the bag anyway. In the normal horizontal dive position, the inflator hose can be used, and well as the butt dump. The IH is actually just slightly to the side of centerline and is in a good position to pick up the bouyant gas in the bag from either side.

thanks for the input, mempilot.

 

[Scubaroo]

If you don't need or use a STA, the donut is sandwiched between the tank and plate. How does the air flow between that space? It can't

Okay, I call BS on this one. You're implying that the wing does not extend beyond the bottom of the backplate. Even the smallest wing I sell (18lb) is longer than a standard backplate, there's absolutely no way on earth that mounting it without an STA is going to "pinch off" the air.

For those worried about repairing bladderless wings... if it's a manufacturing fault - talk to the manufacturer, if it's wear & tear or damage - AquaSeal.

 

[cool_hardware52]

Okay, I call BS on this one. You're implying that the wing does not extend beyond the bottom of the backplate. Even the smallest wing I sell (18lb) is longer than a standard backplate, there's absolutely no way on earth that mounting it without an STA is going to "pinch off" the air.

For those worried about repairing bladderless wings... if it's a manufacturing fault - talk to the manufacturer, if it's wear & tear or damage - AquaSeal.

Scubaroo,

I would agree that the space between ones tank and ones, well lets just say "rump" here on the family friendly board, is sufficient for air to travel from one side of the wing to the other.

Repair is another issue. RF welded urethane coated Nylon cannot be field repaired with adhesive alone, if the holes are of any significance. Small holes sure, rips, tears would be highly problematic. Good quality Urethane coated Nylon is tough stuff, not damaged easily, but you are kinda screwed if you do.

This wouldn't keep me from either building or using a single bladder wing, but it is a potential downside of the method.

With a conventional shell + inner bladder style repairs can be made on somewhat larger holes etc, because the bladder is not loaded, the shell is. All the bladder does is provide resistance to air permeabilty.

Here again I not saying that any hole in a Inner bladder is quickly fixed between dives with a smear of AquaSeal, any thing much more than a small hole would prompt me to replace the bladder. Replacement bladders are $40-60, fair less than the cost of replacing a nonrepairable welded single bladder wing.

There are pro's and con's to each approach, best for people to weight each prior to purchase.



Regards,



Tobin

 

[furmirek]

Anuone knows the price difference between OMS/HALCYON/DR single tank wings ?