Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I had one of these setups back in the early 80's. On the plus side, they looked very cool, and you could over fill them to be about 120 cubic feet. On the minus, they weighed more than any equivalent system; the cool looking plastic fairing for the tanks began cracking from its own weight after about two years of use(picking it up by its handle); they had alot more that would go wrong than in a single larger tank; there was no room left to fit a pony tank with out looking like you were dragging a mini stage bottle; hydro's cost a bundle;and depending on your perspective, the absence of a BC could be a problem...when I got mine (1979) I felt that anyone who needed a BC deserved to drown. Today I am considerably more enlightened ;) Dan > >I never used them, but sheesh, twice as many O rings, twice as many inspections, >twice as many hydros, can't fit a normal BCD, no dual outlets, more weight than >a steel 90...that's a high price to pay just to look like an astronaut! >Andy Cohen > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > >Does anyone out there have any experience (good or bad) with the USD >triple 30 cubic foot tank set-up? It consists of 3 Al 30's with a manifold >surrounded by a plastic case and has been out of production for some time. >Are there any hydrodynamic or weight benefits that offset the maintenance of >3 tanks instead of 1? > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. >Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. > > Dan Volker SOUTH FLORIDA DIVE JOURNAL http://www.florida.net/scuba/dive 407-683-3592
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]