04-12-2007, 01:39 PM
I checked the Cabelas comparison chart mentioned above and found that it isn't entirely accurate. While giving some good general comparisons, it botched some things. For instance, it lists the size of the FC4 and the Super Fat Cat at 45"x54". However, there is a definite and noticable difference in the size of these two. (I have both tubes.) See picture below that compares the size of the FC4 and the Fat Cat/Super Fat Cat:
![[Image: fishbyfat2.jpg]](http://www.riverwire.com/fishbyfat2.jpg)
For someone making a critical comparison the Cabelas chart would be misleading (at least on these tubes).
BTW, it has been mentioned before but there is a great comparison review on the Outcast tubes at Riverwire.com:
[url "http://www.riverwire.com/outcasttubereview2.htm"]Outcast tube comparison[/url]
I also have an ODC 420 and if you set it up in such a side by side comparison it would fall between the FC4 and the Fat Cat/Super Fat Cat in size. Back when I was tube shopping I took a tape measure with me and measured each of these tubes critically.
Just some things to think about. In the critical ways we sometimes review these things on this forum, it is important to get good information before you plunk your money down.
z~
[signature]
For someone making a critical comparison the Cabelas chart would be misleading (at least on these tubes).
BTW, it has been mentioned before but there is a great comparison review on the Outcast tubes at Riverwire.com:
[url "http://www.riverwire.com/outcasttubereview2.htm"]Outcast tube comparison[/url]
I also have an ODC 420 and if you set it up in such a side by side comparison it would fall between the FC4 and the Fat Cat/Super Fat Cat in size. Back when I was tube shopping I took a tape measure with me and measured each of these tubes critically.
Just some things to think about. In the critical ways we sometimes review these things on this forum, it is important to get good information before you plunk your money down.
z~
[signature]