Well thank you for your time i agree bk gave good marks on both. Most archers r going 2 look at those articles and compare. I agree if you look at the tech. side of things there is a differance. But that is not what most archers look at. You still can compare when buying a bow and trying choose which one fits best ,draws best feels best shoots best ect. for that buyer. As a cooperate bowtech person and the way you have responed 2 me has now made me think again about buying a bowtech. I didnt fall off the turnip trk last nite. Ill take these emails to my bowtech dealer today so he knows why iam not buying one. sorry I still think the general is a GREAT bow.
Arrowum,
With all due respect Dan said nothing at all out of line regarding anything relating to you or or post..........You stated the results of a bow test where 2 completely different bows out of the box aren't anything alike. All Dan did was point out that if the performance output of the General vs the Katera was the deciding factor between the 2 bows there are better bows to compare it to spec wise.
The General will never put out what the Katera will because by design it's impossible.
That's all, and there are people who will buy a particular bow based upon the raw numbers without really undertsanding why they are different in the first place.
Dan doesn't know whether or not you just "Fell off the turnip truck" as you stated and simply pointed that out in case you were unaware of WHY one performs different/higher/lower than the other.
The Katera VS the Airborne bows would be a very fair comparison.