Tank questions
- Thread starter LPM
- Start date
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
Bob DBF
Contributor
The ones others have quoted are for the old steel 72's, designed before the Al 80 was invented.
PST and Faber also made Mid Pressure 3300 psi (including the 10%) that hold 72 cuft at that pressure. I believe Faber still makes theirs, and are smaller than the old steel 72's and are nice little tanks.
PST and Faber also made Mid Pressure 3300 psi (including the 10%) that hold 72 cuft at that pressure. I believe Faber still makes theirs, and are smaller than the old steel 72's and are nice little tanks.
Yes, @Bob DBF is correct. I should have mentioned above that I was referring to old-school cylinders like my U.S. Divers-stamped PST cylinder with a 1970 first hydro, my favorite cylinder these days for rec diving in temperate fresh water using a thin wetsuit.
ETA: Scubapro used to offer a "Slim" 72, a Faber cylinder that has capacity 71.4 cu ft at 3,300 psig (= 3,000 + 10%). It is about as tall as an old-school 72, but slimmer (~6" OD vs. ~6.8") and a bit more negatively buoyant empty (~ -2.5 lbs vs. ~ +0.5 lbs in salt water, I think). This might be the same Faber that @Bob DBF is referring to above.
rx7diver
ETA: Scubapro used to offer a "Slim" 72, a Faber cylinder that has capacity 71.4 cu ft at 3,300 psig (= 3,000 + 10%). It is about as tall as an old-school 72, but slimmer (~6" OD vs. ~6.8") and a bit more negatively buoyant empty (~ -2.5 lbs vs. ~ +0.5 lbs in salt water, I think). This might be the same Faber that @Bob DBF is referring to above.
rx7diver
Similar threads
