WW Hydra Pack Review

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
carbonate
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:34 pm
Location: Toronto

WW Hydra Pack Review

Post by carbonate » Tue May 01, 2012 9:54 pm

I just grabbed a hydra pack today for 5 bucks so I'll just add my couple cents about the thing (My first review of the days). Since specs are already on Isoaker, I wouldn't be measuring for this review, but rather mention them throughout the review.

WW Hydra Pack is basically a portable Gardening Hose which has large blasting capacity due to its huge CPS PC which utilizes WW in-reservoir PC technology. This blaster is in the middle-road between CPS3K, 3.2K and Aqua Pack Devastator, and SC Power Pack, SC Splashzooka and Big Trouble. The blaster combines the benefit of large backpack CPS and unlimited blasting power of the large QFD series SC. Since Hydra Pack has not been reviewed very much so I'll contribute a detailed review.

Comparison of CPS3.2k vs. Hydra Pack and SC Power Pack vs. Hydra Pack

Case 1: CPS3.2K vs. Hydra Pack
Hydra Pack has much longer firing time, but does not have the raw power of a on-rifle CPS PC gives like on the CPS3.2K. This is owing to the much longer path that water have to travel (since Hydra Pack CPS chamber is inside the backpack opposed to on-board CPS chamber on 3.2K). Also, the Hydra Pack rubber CPS chamber have to stretch more, therefore should have less strength than the 3.2K chamber. This lack of power is clearly demonstrated as Isoaker have tested it. While the 3.2K fires a 20X blast at maximum power, the Hydra Pack is rated at 4X (by Isoaker). Therefore, the 3.2K has around 4-5 times more output than the WW. Also, due to being based on weaker firing chamber WW shots does not reach as far as 3.2K. Therefore, HP is less useful for a defensive cannon role.
However, both blasters can be used away from hose because they both have their own way of pumping thus, independent from need to pressurize at higher pressure tap source like some of the SC do. Therefore, both blasters can be used away from tap or QFD, making both useful for use at remote locations such as outer defense outpost or extended skirmishes.
What gives HP edge over 3.2K is the pressure chamber size. Isoaker suggested HP holds around 4.5L in PC compared to 900mL in 3.2K. This enormous amount of pressurized water paired with less powerful nozzle gives a SC Power Pack-like shooting time. In contrast, 3.2K's power comes at cost of shot time. In analogy, when 3.2K burns fuel like nitro, HP guzzles fuel more slowly like candle. This advantage extends pump-free battlefield life of the blaster giving edge on dodge and charge while opponents are pumping tactics. Therefore HP has vastly different combat doctrine than 3.2K. The shortage of range means that this soaker must be used for dodge and hit tactics rather than hit-and-run tactic like heavy CPS blaster. Role this blaster might assume is the flamethrower of the squad, responsible for giving the squad wire-area continuous saturation without fear of running out of ammo compared to 3.2K which has some conserving to do (more like large mechanized unit).

Case 2: SC Power Pack vs. HP
WW HP is more similar to the blasting power of SC Power Pack. However, opposed to the HP the SC Power Pack contains a 10X nozzle which is significantly more powerful than the one featured on the HP (Isoaker rating 4X). Also, another key difference of the SC is, it is powered by triple CPS PC which each hold significantly less than the WW CPS PC. Thus, this distributed weight of pressure on 3 chambers with less capacity allows the Power Pack to have stronger CPS PC which allows higher pressure overall without putting stress on the rubber too much (causing it to rupture I think). Therefore SC Power Pack is 2-3 more powerful than Hydra Pack.
What makes SC Power Pack very dangerous for the offending foe is the sheer capacity of pressurized water which actually have some power behind it. Similarly WW HP posses similar threat to the foe because it too has sheer capacity of pressurized water, but at less of a magnitude because it does not have as much power behind it as a Power Pack. If you ever see a fully loaded PP, run because it is going to become a very soaking situation. On the other hand, if you see a HP, be prepared to run because it too still have sheering soaking capacity.
However, if the SC PP does not have a active QFD (hose), it becomes a sitting duck because not hose means no juice. Therefore, SC PP is rather more limited to defensive purpose, where active QFD is present. Opposed to that, WW HP can still pressurize thanks to built-in pump on the backpack albeit more time-consuming than 3.2K. Due to its ability to pump without QFD, extends HP's versatility in deployment range anywhere from base-defense to offensive capability.

Conclusion
WW HP is a good semi-pumpless blaster. It's output is decent, allowing the user to keep up with some of the light CPS series soakers such as 1K. It also, has sheer capacity in the PC and reservoir which allows the user to keep the juice going after everyone's already empty. Also, built-in pump allows user to reload in outposts without hose.
WW HP does have some downfalls where as it does have strong shot time, the shots itself lack in range and power compared to other back-pack blasters out-there; Therefore, the power-to-weigh ratio is quite low in another words. This is mainly due to the design which HP utilizes (I think).
Still this is a dangerous blaster in the field it may look childish, but watch out it will soak your pants off for sure when your PC runs dry.

Utilization
I can envision myself using this blaster in heavy point-man position where I have to charge in to assault while heavier CPS series are giving me cover fire. When the foes is re-pumping their PC is the time to soak without mercy because my CPS PC will never run dry. Due to its own pump it is not limited to base defense like SC Power Pack also making it more useful for offensive assaults away from home base.
I wouldn't use HP on base-defense because there are better blasters for that purpose. Mainly I think of base defense should be left to more powerful soakers which offer greater range. If the blasters don't have range, then the defenders will be outgunned at defensive position and be saturated. Therefore, HP would not do well in defensive duties

User avatar
Nitro123PG
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: WW Hydra Pack Review

Post by Nitro123PG » Wed May 02, 2012 7:01 am

Very nice. An informative, well written review.

Where did you get a Hydra Pak? I've been wanting one for several years but they never pop up on eBay.

carbonate
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:34 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: WW Hydra Pack Review

Post by carbonate » Wed May 02, 2012 8:45 am

There is 1 hydra pack for sale at Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/Buzz-Bee-Toys-Hyd ... B000NKCQ1S, but it is highly overpriced (@ 50 bucks), where original retail was around 20 bucks CDN. I bought mine off Kijiji, I have seen 2 pop up last 6 months on Kijiji at reasonable price. Got lucky this time because it was barely used therefore functioning almost like new and of course pick-up was very close.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests