Wing Design(s)

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The Cosmicist

Contributor
Messages
150
Reaction score
83
Location
47°9′S 123°43′W
# of dives
0 - 24
So I'm simply curious about some wing designs and want to know if I'm thinking about it the wrong way.

I just bought a DGX S1 wing (which is actually an Oxycheq 30#, even has an Oxycheq tag on it) and an OMS 32# Performance Mono. I like and dislike them both for different reasons, but maybe I'm thinking about it wrong... Apples and oranges, I know, but worth looking at briefly.

The OMS wing seems to be very well made and feels/acts like it is more sturdy than the DGX. But it's very wide, and I assume it "tacos" around the cylinder. In fact, the captain of the last dive boat I got seasick on dived with said, "You're gonna have a lot of drag with that wing." But the flat center portion where the cam bands go through is wide enough that the wing can completely fill without being restricted by trim weights or 8 in. diameter tanks. I like that. These pictures might help. And yeeessss I know the cam bands aren't attached correctly, I just wanted some photos you internet sleuths:

IMG_3134.jpeg

IMG_3132.jpeg

IMG_3133.jpeg

oms-mono_1.jpg


In contrast, the DGX wing is streamlined and narrow, but seems less tough/well-made and the center portion with cam band slots seems too narrow. It doesn't seem to allow for full expansion, especially with trim weights and/or 8 in. diameter cylinders. In fact, IIRC I've read elsewhere on here that some divers have lost lift capacity due to this wing design.

dx-202030-elbow_2.jpg


Nothing is perfect in life, but I am curious as to why they are designed this way. Are there combinations of these designs out there?

Something like Deep 6 30# or Subgravity 30# comes to mind, except for the Subgravity wing has the corrugated hose coming from the center of the wing??

Deep 6:
30lbwingrear.jpg


Subgravity:

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 13-03-40 Paragon 30 - Subgravity.png



What do you all think? Do you have trouble with impingement/loss of lift or with manta ray taco flap? What wing design did you settle for and why? What do you think should be improved, if anything?
 

gqllc007

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
436
Reaction score
211
Location
Albany NY
# of dives
200 - 499
Funny you bring this up. I have the 27# OMS mono and the DGX single and noticed the exact same thing. I happen to use both with a STA and just got back from Key Largo (using Al80) with DGX and no issues whatsover. I have also dove it in the cold with 7mm wetsuit etc..no issues with either wing. I liked the DGX because it was so narrow. I am rigging up an aluminum BP set up and will most likely use the OMS 27 with no STA and cam bands as that seems to me to be an easy set up for the cam bands.
 

AustinV

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
473
Reaction score
238
Location
Loudoun County, VA
# of dives
100 - 199
I have that same OMS wing you do on my singles rig. Is it wider than other wings? Yes, but it has never caused me any issues whatsoever. It's made very well. For doubles I use a DSS Torus wing, that wing as well is wider than the average comparable wing but again, no issues, no taco effect, etc.
 

loosenit2

si respiratio sub aqua amet
Messages
976
Reaction score
1,167
Location
Virginia
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
something to consider is that the taco effect can actually help you maintain trim & buoyancy. I have a hollis 45 wing I use with doubles, it is narrow enough that is comes out just beyond the edges of the tanks but does not taco at all. I also have a Halcyon 60lb wing that does come out to the side of the tanks quite a bit, and does taco on the doubles. On the advice of a UTD instructor I switched from the 45lb wing to the 60lb wing and it made a huge difference. With the narrower wing my center of gravity was much closer to my body, whereas with the larger wing my center of gravity is midline of my tanks. Also using the bigger wing the air gas in the wing is distributed over a wider area making the rig more stable. Using the 60lb wing it is significantly easier to maintain trim and run drills without any loss of buoyancy.

Is there more drag, maybe but in practical terms I can't feel it, and the trim and buoyancy control factors are much more important.
 
OP
The Cosmicist

The Cosmicist

Contributor
Messages
150
Reaction score
83
Location
47°9′S 123°43′W
# of dives
0 - 24
Funny you bring this up. I have the 27# OMS mono and the DGX single and noticed the exact same thing. I happen to use both with a STA and just got back from Key Largo (using Al80) with DGX and no issues whatsover. I have also dove it in the cold with 7mm wetsuit etc..no issues with either wing. I liked the DGX because it was so narrow. I am rigging up an aluminum BP set up and will most likely use the OMS 27 with no STA and cam bands as that seems to me to be an easy set up for the cam bands.

Glad others have noticed this. See, I don't use an STA, or even screws to hold the wing on the plate. I just slide the wing on the cam bands, and when I tighten the bands the wing is super secure due to the tension and the tank pressing against it. When I put the DGX wing on, I noticed the real estate around the tank disappeared really quickly because there was no STA holding the tank away from the wing. I really don't think it can fully inflate, but maybe I'm wrong?

I have that same OMS wing you do on my singles rig. Is it wider than other wings? Yes, but it has never caused me any issues whatsoever. It's made very well. For doubles I use a DSS Torus wing, that wing as well is wider than the average comparable wing but again, no issues, no taco effect, etc.

Yeah, you make a good point. I really think it's good quality and if you're careful about how you deflate it (i.e, move around, ass up, etc) I wouldn't think it would cause issues.

something to consider is that the taco effect can actually help you maintain trim & buoyancy. I have a hollis 45 wing I use with doubles, it is narrow enough that is comes out just beyond the edges of the tanks but does not taco at all. I also have a Halcyon 60lb wing that does come out to the side of the tanks quite a bit, and does taco on the doubles. On the advice of a UTD instructor I switched from the 45lb wing to the 60lb wing and it made a huge difference. With the narrower wing my center of gravity was much closer to my body, whereas with the larger wing my center of gravity is midline of my tanks. Also using the bigger wing the air gas in the wing is distributed over a wider area making the rig more stable. Using the 60lb wing it is significantly easier to maintain trim and run drills without any loss of buoyancy.

Is there more drag, maybe but in practical terms I can't feel it, and the trim and buoyancy control factors are much more important.

You make a very good point. I was going to say the same thing in this thread... I felt more stable and like my trim was better with the OMS. And like I mentioned above, if you know how to move around to get the air out, a little taco-ing shouldn't be so detrimental. It's when you can't (don't know how) to get the air out that it becomes an issue, right?

It also seems to me like the OMS would be better for colder and deeper water, as it has more space for trim weights, is wide and stable, and will inflate 100% to counteract wetsuit compression.
 

-JD-

Eclecticist
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
878
Location
Greater Philadelphia, PA
# of dives
50 - 99
Dive Rite Voyager is somewhat tapered - narrower at the top, wider at the bottom. Which may be good or bad as far as shifting your center of lift and whether you are "heavier" at head or foot in a given exposure, fin, tank(s) configuration goes.

Dive Rite Voyager XT Armored Wing
dr-bc5200_1a.jpg
 

Nemrod

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
12,522
Reaction score
2,877
Location
Dixie/High Plains
I think the Oxy wings were purposely designed as they are to reduce both frontal area and girth. They tend to be long for their capacity which is good for me since my legs tend to be heavy as they transfer some lift aft. I am pretty sure the design was intentional to reduce drag and frontal area and to eliminate the taco. And I am somewhat surprised you say the OMS is heavier duty than the Oxy. Perhaps they have changed since I got my 30 and 18 Mach V wings but I have yet to see a wing with heavier materials.

I also have a Diverite doubles wing, horseshoe shaped and two VDH wings, an 18 and a 23. The VDH wings are slightly wider than the Oxy wings, though still very narrow and not quite as long. But they have an internal bungee system that shrinks the wing down so much so that the 23 looks smaller than the Oxy 18 when not fully inflated. But because the VDH wings are slightly wider will inflate fully with my VDH flat plate whereas the Oxy 18 probably is pinched down a little to about 16 pounds lift. I use my Oxy 30 on a Freedom Plate and it will fully inflate despite it's narrow profile on that plate. All of my wings will inflate fully on a bent type tech plate.

Long ago, from the late 70s until around 2000 or so, I often used first a Scubapro wing and then later a Seatec wing, then called a back inflate BC. It was horseshoe shaped and had about 40 pounds of lift. It would taco and definitely fluttered in current. I fixed this to some degree by cutting the center panel out and fabricating a smaller center section and had an awning shop sew it back. I then punched in four small holes down each side and installed stainless grommets and then added a length of bungee that tied to the center section aft and then passed though all four holes on each side. This sucked the wing in and curled it. Worked great.

An opinion, I think the VDH wings, not currently available :(, made in the USA, for price and performance and quality may be the best wings ever offered for single tank diving. Saying that, I am still and have been a fan of the Oxy wings and have never seen one even pretend to come apart and I like the super narrow profile and I can tell in use that they have very low water drag.

N
 
OP
The Cosmicist

The Cosmicist

Contributor
Messages
150
Reaction score
83
Location
47°9′S 123°43′W
# of dives
0 - 24
Dive Rite Voyager is somewhat tapered - narrower at the top, wider at the bottom. Which may be good or bad as far as shifting your center of lift and whether you are "heavier" at head or foot in a given exposure, fin, tank(s) configuration goes.

Dive Rite Voyager XT Armored Wing
View attachment 677104

Yeah, it seems like a well-designed wing if you are using an STA. I personally chose not to buy it because there are no cylinder stabilizers sewn in for those who don't use an STA.
 
OP
The Cosmicist

The Cosmicist

Contributor
Messages
150
Reaction score
83
Location
47°9′S 123°43′W
# of dives
0 - 24
I think the Oxy wings were purposely designed as they are to reduce both frontal area and girth. They tend to be long for their capacity which is good for me since my legs tend to be heavy as they transfer some lift aft. I am pretty sure the design was intentional to reduce drag and frontal area and to eliminate the taco. And I am somewhat surprised you say the OMS is heavier duty than the Oxy. Perhaps they have changed since I got my 30 and 18 Mach V wings but I have yet to see a wing with heavier materials.

I also have a Diverite doubles wing, horseshoe shaped and two VDH wings, an 18 and a 23. The VDH wings are slightly wider than the Oxy wings, though still very narrow and not quite as long. But they have an internal bungee system that shrinks the wing down so much so that the 23 looks smaller than the Oxy 18 when not fully inflated. But because the VDH wings are slightly wider will inflate fully with my VDH flat plate whereas the Oxy 18 probably is pinched down a little to about 16 pounds lift. I use my Oxy 30 on a Freedom Plate and it will fully inflate despite it's narrow profile on that plate. All of my wings will inflate fully on a bent type tech plate.

Long ago, from the late 70s until around 2000 or so, I often used first a Scubapro wing and then later a Seatec wing, then called a back inflate BC. It was horseshoe shaped and had about 40 pounds of lift. It would taco and definitely fluttered in current. I fixed this to some degree by cutting the center panel out and fabricating a smaller center section and had an awning shop sew it back. I then punched in four small holes down each side and installed stainless grommets and then added a length of bungee that tied to the center section aft and then passed though all four holes on each side. This sucked the wing in and curled it. Worked great.

An opinion, I think the VDH wings, not currently available :(, made in the USA, for price and performance and quality may be the best wings ever offered for single tank diving. Saying that, I am still and have been a fan of the Oxy wings and have never seen one even pretend to come apart and I like the super narrow profile and I can tell in use that they have very low water drag.

N

I agree with you on a lot of your points. First of all, I don't think the Oxy wings are flimsy or made poorly. To "clarify" like a lawyer, I've never seen a true Oxy wing. I have the DGX version which probably has some subtle changes from the Oxy wings (based on the price it sells for). Maybe the corrugated hose and inflator assembly? Anyways, I think the DGX/Oxy wing has a good design and is well-made. The OMS just feels and seems sturdier from use and inspection and I just wondered about the Oxy/DGX's (and Mares XR) ability to completely inflate when sucked up against a cylinder. It seems physically impossible. I'll look for into this on my dives this weekend. It performed great and I am also foot heavy, but I oddly felt myself trying to correct my foot-heaviness during the dive. Maybe all I need to do is move the wing down on the cam bands a few inches.

I'm not surprised the Oxy 30 will fully inflate on the Freedom Plate. There's more freedom for the wing to move (especially backwards towards your shoulder blades)! :wink:

I think your modifications to older style wings were smart. That's pretty much the essence of newer designs... Someone didn't like something they used and sought to improve it.

VDH wings look great, and I would have heavily considered buying one if... You could... The last two years have been very rough for small businesses. I'm also really interested in the Deep 6 and Subgravity wings as mentioned above. I think they have great designs as well.
 

Eric Sedletzky

Contributor
Messages
7,523
Reaction score
6,244
Location
California
# of dives
500 - 999
I used to be a dealer for Oxycheq and was around when Patrick came up with the Mach V. I was one of the very first to get one and try it. The first run of a few dozen he had made didn’t have slots or roll control, they had 11” center holes and you needed a STA. He changed that as soon as he figured out what geometery was best for slots and roll cushions. He also saw immediately what kind of demand that new style created. It was instantly successful. I redesigned my entire plate because of the Oxycheq Mach V change from the older signature and razor wings, so I was right in there with Patrick when all this happened. We used to communicate on the phone several times a week back in those days.
His idea was to create the slickest, narrowest, most streamlined single tank wing on the market to blow the doors off every other brand, and he succeeded. At the time he was facing some competition from halcyon, a few others, and to some degree DSS, but he always though Tobin was an idiot so he wasn’t terribly concerned about Tobin’s stuff due to the many design flaws he saw in his Torus wing.
Oxycheq took a little market share from Halcyon when their Pioneer wing used to be a single bladder style and they used to leak air out of every seam due to a bad internal urethane sealing job.
Patrick came up with the internal bladder Signature series wings and snatched a lot of business with that upgrade.
To this day the Oxycheq Mach V wing still rules overall in super streamlined design. A few have already mentioned the knock-offs like VDH and DGX. They are smart, because I’ll bet others will inevitably follow suit. You can already see it in in the Mares wings and the Apeks wing (and others) the influence that Oxycheq has had.
Patrick also was the one to come out with that sewn fabric travel plate. Mares even has a version of it now. The first time I called him to order a bunch of Signature wings, I told him about this new Freedom Plate back pack style plate that I had come up with and he mentioned he had a similar idea but to make one out of something like a tough conveyor belt material or fiber reinforced rubber like a commercial plate and it would be for travel. The fabric plate is what you got.
So there you have it.

What all this has to do with the difference/ benefits/ plus/minus of narrow vs wide, I don’t know, I was just giving some history.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Top Bottom