With my budget and space constraints, I have narrowed my new tank down to two choices. Either a 72x24x24 or 60x30x24. What's the better footprint for 2 foot and under monsters?
Better footprint?
- Thread starter Languistic
- Start date
it really depends on the stocking in my opinion though I would go for the longer tank as the extra 12 inches in length will make more of a diff with the size of the fish you are talkin than the extra width
I myself was in a bind too but wasn't over the width but length. I was contemplating between 96" or 84" both widths are 24" because my other tank would be in the way if I went any wider. But in your case I'd go wider but, like stated above totally depends on what you plan on throwing in there.
If I'm not mistaken, the 30" is height not width, so their both 2 foot width but one is higher (30") and one is a foot longer, since height isn't as important with fw is go with the 72x24x24, that's a solid footprint.
Go S. Vettel #1 rb8
Go S. Vettel #1 rb8
I would consider that foootprint 60 x 30 is better then 72 x 24 in most cases. What species of arowana are you thinking?
Commonly tanks are listed length x width x height.
Commonly tanks are listed length x width x height.