PDA

View Full Version : Sportways tanks



Ryanh1801
07-28-2008, 22:09
Anyone know anything on these tanks. I am looking at some that where made in 75, doubled up. They just recently got hydro'ed, this week. Thinking about them just for a set to play around in for a little bit. Any info is much appreciated.

Thanks
Ryan :smiley20:

navyhmc
07-28-2008, 22:36
The number one question is...Are they steel or aluminum?

If they are steel, I would wait until they pass a VIP as well as the Hydro and go for it. Keep in mind that is the vavle/mainfold is from '75 as well, you will have only one valve to attach a reg to, which translates to no failsafe is you have a valve or regulator problem save heading rapidly to the surface. Not to mention that a lot of '75 systems don't have valves for each tank, just one for the entire system-see above mentioned failsafe translation.

If they are Aluminum, Back away slowly lest they go boom! Actually, no but any aluminum tanks that are pre '88 are made of 6351 alminum and you will have trouble finding a shop to fill them.

see: http://forum.scubatoys.com/complaints-problems/15594-refused-fill-tanks.html for the full poop.

Ryanh1801
07-28-2008, 22:39
The number one question is...Are they steel or aluminum?

If they are steel, I would wait until they pass a VIP as well as the Hydro and go for it. Keep in mind that is the vavle/mainfold is from '75 as well, you will have only one valve to attach a reg to, which translates to no failsafe is you have a valve or regulator problem save heading rapidly to the surface. Not to mention that a lot of '75 systems don't have valves for each tank, just one for the entire system-see above mentioned failsafe translation.

If they are Aluminum, Back away slowly lest they go boom! Actually, no but any aluminum tanks that are pre '88 are made of 6351 alminum and you will have trouble finding a shop to fill them.

see: http://forum.scubatoys.com/complaints-problems/15594-refused-fill-tanks.html for the full poop.


Thanks for the info. They are steel LP tanks. I sent another Email asking if they had a VIS while being hydroed. Also sent request for some pictures of the manifold. If I can get them cheap enough they might be worth it either way just to play with.

captain
07-29-2008, 10:08
The general thought today is doubles are for redunancy with two regulators. That wasn't always the case as the fact is most doubles from days gone by had single outlet manifolds. You could always use them as is for NDL diving, break them down into singles or switch to a double outlet manifold. I have a set of sportways single outlet doubles.

Here is a thread on the same subject
http://forum.scubatoys.com/dir-tec-gear/15394-just-out-curiosity.html

divinginn
07-29-2008, 21:48
I have a set of us divers steel 72s doubled up,nice easy to use set of tanks and way easier on the back than a pair of 130s.

navyhmc
07-30-2008, 05:01
Another thought: If they are circa '75 "modern" tanks, they should be good as they will have the standard tank threads. There are smoe that come from the late 60's that had an insert in them to allow a scuba K-valve to be attached. If they have the insert, which I really doubt they have, but if they do, avoid them like the plague! These are truly dangerous.

As noted, if the manifold is circa the tanks, they are not necessarily undiveable, but know the limitations. Have fun.

And if you get them and want to split them up, let me know, I can get you a pair that are '80's and still in good shape to put on them. Cheap too-they came off a pair of 6351 tanks that are now scrap. :(

captain
07-30-2008, 09:36
There are smoe that come from the late 60's that had an insert in them to allow a scuba K-valve to be attached. If they have the insert, which I really doubt they have, but if they do, avoid them like the plague! These are truly dangerous. :(

Not true, the tanks you are referring to were converted military life raft co2 tanks or aircraft oxygen tanks. They had 1" taper pipe thread necks and a 1" to 1/2" steel reducer was used to allow a J or K valve to be used. This was common in the early days of scuba as there was an abundance of these surplus tanks after the war. There are no regulations from either DOT or the Compressed Gas Accociaition Inc that ban the use of reducers provided they are rated for the intended pressure. That is just another example of mis-information generated by the dive industry.

navyhmc
07-30-2008, 13:51
There are smoe that come from the late 60's that had an insert in them to allow a scuba K-valve to be attached. If they have the insert, which I really doubt they have, but if they do, avoid them like the plague! These are truly dangerous. :(

Not true, the tanks you are referring to were converted military life raft co2 tanks or aircraft oxygen tanks. They had 1" taper pipe thread necks and a 1" to 1/2" steel reducer was used to allow a J or K valve to be used. This was common in the early days of scuba as there was an abundance of these surplus tanks after the war. There are no regulations from either DOT or the Compressed Gas Accociaition Inc that ban the use of reducers provided they are rated for the intended pressure. That is just another example of mis-information generated by the dive industry.

That's true, but I recall talking to the tech that did a lot of the hydros and in 1982, they had 5 of 10 fail hydro one of which damaged the water jacket-$10,000 worth of repairs in 1982 dollars. They quit doing hydros on them as they no longer wanted the liability. The problem wasn't the reduction or the pressure, it was the corrosion-the reducer was a maganet for it. Hence, the refusal to to hydro's at least around here.

captain
07-30-2008, 14:01
There are smoe that come from the late 60's that had an insert in them to allow a scuba K-valve to be attached. If they have the insert, which I really doubt they have, but if they do, avoid them like the plague! These are truly dangerous. :(

Not true, the tanks you are referring to were converted military life raft co2 tanks or aircraft oxygen tanks. They had 1" taper pipe thread necks and a 1" to 1/2" steel reducer was used to allow a J or K valve to be used. This was common in the early days of scuba as there was an abundance of these surplus tanks after the war. There are no regulations from either DOT or the Compressed Gas Accociaition Inc that ban the use of reducers provided they are rated for the intended pressure. That is just another example of mis-information generated by the dive industry.

That's true, but I recall talking to the tech that did a lot of the hydros and in 1982, they had 5 of 10 fail hydro one of which damaged the water jacket-$10,000 worth of repairs in 1982 dollars. They quit doing hydros on them as they no longer wanted the liability. The problem wasn't the reduction or the pressure, it was the corrosion-the reducer was a maganet for it. Hence, the refusal to to hydro's at least around here.

Regulations require reducers must be removed before hydo is done.

Ryanh1801
07-30-2008, 23:16
Well I ended up passing on them for now. Just a single outlet, and no VIS inspection, although he said he would have it done. So if they pass VIS, I might still pick them up for the right price, I would love to get a vintage set to go diving in, just for fun.

WD8CDH
07-31-2008, 11:13
That's true, but I recall talking to the tech that did a lot of the hydros and in 1982, they had 5 of 10 fail hydro one of which damaged the water jacket-$10,000 worth of repairs in 1982 dollars. They quit doing hydros on them as they no longer wanted the liability. The problem wasn't the reduction or the pressure, it was the corrosion-the reducer was a maganet for it. Hence, the refusal to to hydro's at least around here.

That doesn't make sense. Even if the tank ruptured, the energy in the almost incompressable water and the elastic expansion of the tank and lines wouldn't be enough to damage more than the pipette. They must have performed the Hydro wrong, e.g. didn't purge the air from the tank before the hydrostatic pressurization. And like the Captain said, not removing the adaptor is doing the Hydro wrong too.

WD8CDH
07-31-2008, 11:17
Double 72s are a pleasure to dive with. More comfortable than a single 130 to me.

navyhmc
07-31-2008, 12:41
That's true, but I recall talking to the tech that did a lot of the hydros and in 1982, they had 5 of 10 fail hydro one of which damaged the water jacket-$10,000 worth of repairs in 1982 dollars. They quit doing hydros on them as they no longer wanted the liability. The problem wasn't the reduction or the pressure, it was the corrosion-the reducer was a maganet for it. Hence, the refusal to to hydro's at least around here.

That doesn't make sense. Even if the tank ruptured, the energy in the almost incompressable water and the elastic expansion of the tank and lines wouldn't be enough to damage more than the pipette. They must have performed the Hydro wrong, e.g. didn't purge the air from the tank before the hydrostatic pressurization. And like the Captain said, not removing the adaptor is doing the Hydro wrong too.


The hydro was done right-I would trust this guy with my kids life. He explained how it happened, but I can't totally remember now. This happened 20 years ago. The facts I do remember was that it ruptured right at the 5/3 pressure and it was a shard of the tank that did the damage. I can't recall all of what happened, but it did make an indentation in the jacket that required it to be replaced.

ScaredSilly
08-01-2008, 21:52
They just recently got hydro'ed, this week.

We say hydro test but really it a requalification test, which includes a visual inspection and hydrostatic test.

So if they were "recently" hydro'd then they also had a visual inspection. The hydro date is the visual date.

However, dive shops do not seem to recognize that. Sometimes with good reason. Other times it is BS.