Wings; Chart for Actual lift vs ''Rated'' lift?

[Bob3]

I know some wings have several pounds difference between the actual displacement & advertised lifting capacity.

I was wondering if anyone has compiled a chart with actual lifting capacity of various mfgrs wings as compared to their rated/advertised lift.

 

[Charlie99]

Bob3 once bubbled...
I know some wings have several pounds difference between the actual displacement & advertised lifting capacity.

I was wondering if anyone has compiled a chart with actual lifting capacity of various mfgrs wings as compared to their rated/advertised lift.

A prudent diver will measure his own wings. Simply weigh them.
Fill them with water and weigh again. The difference is the lift.

There is a signficant difference between the old and the new Halcyon 36# wings. The old ones were typically 30-32# lift.

The new 27# wings are about 29#


http://tinyurl.com/jpkg

 

[padiscubapro]

Charlie99 once bubbled...

A prudent diver will measure his own wings. Simply weigh them.
Fill them with water and weigh again. The difference is the lift.

There is a signficant difference between the old and the new Halcyon 36# wings. The old ones were typically 30-32# lift.

The new 27# wings are about 29#


http://tinyurl.com/jpkg

no this will not work in many situations.. this only works if there is no elastic properties in the shell or bag.. just filling with water will not strech the wing to its maximum capacity. the only tru measureis to fully inflate a wing with air , submerge it in something filled fully with water and weigh the water that is displaced..

 

[Charlie99]

padiscubapro once bubbled...
no this will not work in many situations.. this only works if there is no elastic properties in the shell or bag.. just filling with water will not strech the wing to its maximum capacity. the only tru measureis to fully inflate a wing with air , submerge it in something filled fully with water and weigh the water that is displaced..

I was thinking of the typical BC bladder or wing that is made out of cordura or similar coated material. Not much stretch.

I was curious about that and compared the "fill with water" measurement with a "hang weights until it sinks" trial when I measured my BC's lift about 2 years ago. (What I actually did was to measure the delta in lead needed to sink me+empty BC vs me+full BC). Less than 1 pound difference out of the 34# lift of my BC.

Try it. I think you will find that the water method expands the bladder/wing just as much, if not more, than you can with oral inflation.

-------------------------

The 30-32 pound lift I mentioned above for the 36 pound no-internal-sta Pioneer wing was provided by Halcyon, not me.

 

[padiscubapro]

Charlie99 once bubbled...
I was thinking of the typical BC bladder or wing that is made out of cordura or similar coated material. Not much stretch.

I was curious about that and compared the "fill with water" measurement with a "hang weights until it sinks" trial when I measured my BC's lift about 2 years ago. (What I actually did was to measure the delta in lead needed to sink me+empty BC vs me+full BC). Less than 1 pound difference out of the 34# lift of my BC.

Try it. I think you will find that the water method expands the bladder/wing just as much, if not more, than you can with oral inflation.

-------------------------

The 30-32 pound lift I mentioned above for the 36 pound no-internal-sta Pioneer wing was provided by Halcyon, not me.

I have tried it, I have a large collection of wings that I have tried at one time or another, the non bungied oms wings expand about the same as with water.. the oms 100 bungied wings I can set the opv off by manually inflating it.. water doesn;'t even come close..

The first wings I ever tried it with was some old seapro wings, they used an internal bladder but the outside was some type of stretch nylon.. the difference in volume was very noticable..