Wing for HP 80?

[mahjong]

Hi Eric,

I looked over once a Hog 32#. You won't find a generous coating of polyurethane on the inside of the outer shell (Halcyon and OMS style), and the inner bladder, though it is supposed to be nylon, looked and felt to me a bit more like rubber masquerading as nylon. Don't know what this might mean, but the company never answered my email request for material specs. But all in all it's more than okay, no one with a modest does of KISS should have a problem with it. I'd dive it.

As for sizing, I didn't take out the tape measure, but this might be because it looked in shape and size exactly like an OMS 32#, which I do own. If the actual dimensions are the same, and I would be very surprised if they were different by much, it's about 25"-26" long (depending on inflation), about the same as the DSS LCD 30, if I'm not mistaken. The Hog might look wider (and therefore perhaps also appear shorter) not because the bladder on the sides is actually wider but because it has a wider center panel than most of today's trim-conscious singles wings.

As for overall quality, my OMS feels more robust and better made to me than the Hog did, but this is based only on a first impression. ~$200 and you can get either wing.

You might want to consider looking at the Hog wing.
I've never seen one in person, but for a 32 LB lift wing it appears to be shorter and a little wider than the ultra slim wings. With the slim wings the air volume has to come from somewhere so they lenthen them.
I hear good things about the Hog and the price is right. I am considering getting one to test it with the plate to see if it would be a good alternative to the pricier Oxycheq line.

The simplest wing and still sought after by many people was Oxycheq's original single walled
Razor 18 and 30 Lb. wings. The fabric itself was urethane lined and didn't have the inner bladder. It was a snap to clean and if it got a hole a little dab of Aquaseal or a patch with wetsuit glue and you were back in business.
I was thinking of looking into someone making a wing like that for me.

I love the KISS philosophy.

 

[rx7diver]

I'm not a fan of HP80's, but if somebody insists on using them with a DSS BP&W I recommend the LCD20, *IF* 20 lbs is enough lift for the their application. The LCD 20 is the shortest wing we offer and the horseshoe design means there is no bladder in the center bottom of the wing.

If you'd like some advice on required lift for your app let me know.

Tobin

Cool_hardware,

Unfortunately, I don't think the LCD 20 will work for me with my HP 80. I love this little tank—bought two of them new c. 1988—but because of its buoyancy characteristics, I can wear it safely for rec diving only if I'm wearing either a thick wetsuit or a drysuit, either of which requires my wearing a lot of lead on my weightbelt, which means I need a wing with a greater lift than the LCD 20's 20 lbs.

Thanks,

Ronald

 

[rx7diver]

... The fabric itself was urethane lined and didn't have the inner bladder. It was a snap to clean and if it got a hole a little dab of Aquaseal or a patch with wetsuit glue and you were back in business. ... I love the KISS philosophy.

ZKY,

I, too, prefer a simple design, something bladder-less. My Scubapro Stab Jacket is bladder-less, constructed of nylon that's neoprene-coated on its inside surfaces, I think. And my Halcyon singles wing, a first-generation Pioneer 27, is urethane-coated on its inside surfaces, I think. (As you know, I currently use my Freedom Plate with this Pioneer 27, which is a very tall wing.) I don't why more BC's/wing's don't use this simpler construction.

Ronald

 

[mahjong]

May I ask what are the buoyancy characteristics of your HP80? I'm just curious. Is it the PST E7-80 -2.5/-8.5?

Cool_hardware,

Unfortunately, I don't think the LCD 20 will work for me with my HP 80. I love this little tank—bought two of them new c. 1988—but because of its buoyancy characteristics, I can wear it safely for rec diving only if I'm wearing either a thick wetsuit or a drysuit, either of which requires my wearing a lot of lead on my weightbelt, which means I need a wing with a greater lift than the LCD 20's 20 lbs.

Thanks,

Ronald

 

[cool_hardware52]

I, too, prefer a simple design, something bladder-less. My Scubapro Stab Jacket is bladder-less, constructed of nylon that's neoprene-coated on its inside surfaces, I think.

This would be unusual. RF welding is typically used with urethane coated materials.

I don't why more BC's/wing's don't use this simpler construction.

Single bladder or "bladderless" construction is less robust and and more difficult to repair. The laminated urethane is on the inside of the inflatable, and is often quite thin. Any patch or adhesives need to be on the urethane (inside surface) if the failure is more than a pin hole.

We produce a few wings using laminates. They do offer some advantages, but are essentially disposable if damaged.

Keep in mind that conventional BC's differ from BP&W's. Conventional BCs don't have 5-6 lbs of hard edge Stainless Steel buried in them.

Wings are most often damaged via pinch flats, and the back plate is the "rock" in the classic "between a rock and a hard place"

Tobin

 

[cool_hardware52]

Cool_hardware,

Unfortunately, I don't think the LCD 20 will work for me with my HP 80. I love this little tank—bought two of them new c. 1988—but because of its buoyancy characteristics, I can wear it safely for rec diving only if I'm wearing either a thick wetsuit or a drysuit, either of which requires my wearing a lot of lead on my weightbelt, which means I need a wing with a greater lift than the LCD 20's 20 lbs.

Thanks,

Ronald

The buoyancy characteristics of a given tank won't dictate wing capacity, the buoyancy of the divers exposure suit will.

Tobin

 

[rx7diver]

May I ask what are the buoyancy characteristics of your HP80? I'm just curious. Is it the PST E7-80 -2.5/-8.5?

Mahjong,

The TDL Website (Scuba Cylinder Specifications from Tech Diving Limited - 928-855-9400) reports the PST HP 80 to be -3.3# empty with valve, and -9.3# full with valve. In fresh water, with a cave fill, and with regulator attached, it's a bit more negatively buoyant.

 

[mahjong]

Scubapro does advertise that their Classic BC bladder is double-coated with neoprene. This is a shot in the dark, but maybe they don't RF weld the seams but rather use some sort of heat tape application?

I will say this: The Scubapro Classic is bomb proof. I've often wondered why wings weren't made of the same bladderless technology, whatever it is. If my understanding is correct, neoprene is not as flexible as urethane, and indeed the BCD is designed in a way that hugs the body and does not flop around freely at any point as does a wing. So maybe neoprene is less than ideal for the wing application.

This would be unusual. RF welding is typically used with urethane coated materials.



Single bladder or "bladderless" construction is less robust and and more difficult to repair. The laminated urethane is on the inside of the inflatable, and is often quite thin. Any patch or adhesives need to be on the urethane (inside surface) if the failure is more than a pin hole.

We produce a few wings using laminates. They do offer some advantages, but are essentially disposable if damaged.

Keep in mind that conventional BC's differ from BP&W's. Conventional BCs don't have 5-6 lbs of hard edge Stainless Steel buried in them.

Wings are most often damaged via pinch flats, and the back plate is the "rock" in the classic "between a rock and a hard place"

Tobin

 

[mahjong]

Not sure if "dictate" excludes completely tank buoyancy characteristics or just means that buoyancy isn't all that matters. Faber makes a steel 80 that's -7.22/-13.22. Are you saying this would have no bearing on wing lift capacity?

The buoyancy characteristics of a given tank won't dictate wing capacity, the buoyancy of the divers exposure suit will.

Tobin

 

[rx7diver]

The buoyancy characteristics of a given tank won't dictate wing capacity, the buoyancy of the divers exposure suit will.

Tobin

Cool_hardware52,

My HP 80 is so negatively buoyant when full, I cannot wear it safely when rec diving with a thin wetsuit in fresh water (since if I loose total BC/Wing buoyancy, I am not able to establish positive buoyancy at the surface by simply ditching my weight belt while continuing to wear my rig with a full tank).

This suggests that, to be safe, I need to wear a thicker wetsuit (or a drysuit), which in turn has implications for the capacity of the BC/wing I need to wear.

This shows that the buoyancy characteristics of this HP 80 has implications for the appropriate BC/wing capacity.

There's actually more to this for me: I choose to weight myself (wearing this thicker wetsuit or drysuit) to be approximately neutral at depth without my rig (so that if I have to temporarily doff my rig at depth, I will not be too positively or negatively buoyant at depth). This choice additionally has implications for the appropriate BC/wing capacity.

Ronald