ScubaPro MK10 Flow-through Piston?

[Litefoot]

I’m reading Regulator Savvy and just wanted to confirm that my MK10 would be classified as a balanced flow-through piston design. I’m also assuming it does not have the reduced piston stem to make it truly “balanced”.

 

[Nemrod]

I’m reading Regulator Savvy and just wanted to confirm that my MK10 would be classified as a balanced flow-through piston design. I’m also assuming it does not have the reduced piston stem to make it truly “balanced”.

Yes, the Mark 10 in it's several iterations is indeed a balanced and flow through piston first stage. The only non balanced piston first stage from Scubapro, currently the Mark 2 Evo, is an unbalanced flow by piston design.

 

[Angelo Farina]

Yes, the Mark 10 in it's several iterations is indeed a balanced and flow through piston first stage. The only non balanced piston first stage from Scubapro, currently the Mark 2 Evo, is an unbalanced flow by piston design.

I would add that the conical seat of the MK10 makes it "perfectly balaced" even without the reduced stem diameter.

 

[Litefoot]

I would add that the conical seat of the MK10 makes it "perfectly balaced" even without the reduced stem diameter.

Thanks for adding that. Good to know. I’m excited to try out my MK10 / 109 combo in the next few weeks. Just need a couple of mouthpieces and hoses.
Edit: Alrhough it won’t be much of a test in a 100 degree 60 ft warm spring.

 

[Angelo Farina]

I warmly suggest that you convert the 109 to BA with an S-wing poppet.
It makes the reg easier to tune and keeping performances unchanged for years...
I also suggest that you use an original Scubapro Superflow hose.

 

[Litefoot]

I warmly suggest that you convert the 109 to BA with an S-wing poppet.
It makes the reg easier to tune and keeping performances unchanged for years...
I also suggest that you use an original Scubapro Superflow hose.

Thanks. I should have mentioned that the primary and secondary are both converted BA 109’s. Can you elaborate on why you prefer the SP hoses?

 

[Angelo Farina]

Thanks. I should have mentioned that the primary and secondary are both converted BA 109’s. Can you elaborate on why you prefer the SP hoses?

The SP hoses are long lasting.
They provide higher flow thanks to lightly larger inner diameter (you only appreciate this when using the secondary for filling a large lift bag).
They feature the famous "splined" nut, which allows for hand-tightening, being safe from unwanted untightening thanks to the rubber sleeve protecting it.
And the rubber sleeve on the first stage end is designed for not retaining salt water inside.
So, in the end, an highly engineerised hose, where every detail is better than a "no brand" hose, which indeed save you just a few bucks. Not worth the small money saving.
Same for an high quality mouthpiece, instead of a "no brand" one.
You have substantially the best available vintage regulator in the world: it is like a vintage Ferrari, or a Lamborghini Miura.
Would you run it over no-brand Chinese tires?

 

[iointerrupt]

Long-lasting indeed. I have a SP hose stamped 1985 on my bench right now, took it up to nearly 200psi and it was fine. Not sure I want to dive it, got plenty of SP hoses that were made in this century, but point stands.

Angelo - Would you happen to know the angle of the cone on the conical seats?

 

[Angelo Farina]

Angelo - Would you happen to know the angle of the cone on the conical seats?

I was going to add the conical surface behind the O-ring.
"el-cheapo" hoses do not feature that properly-angled conical surface, whilst SP hoses have the proper conical surface, ensuring perfect O-ring sealing on the first stage.
I do not know the exact angle, but I know that it is the correct one...