View Single Post
Old 08-29-2013, 05:36 PM   #23
dwfisk
Babbling Farker

 
dwfisk's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-01-12
Location: Fairfield, Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo-Dave View Post
Would a reverse flow tend to use more fuel as a traditional offset of the same size?
Dave
I think not! I've cooked on both, similar sized and uninsulated fireboxs. I think DownHomeQue might have a point on startup but once you get everything up to temp my experience would suggest the opposite, RF's are probably a little more efficient for the entire cook. I suspect the is due to the RF baffle plate storing and radiating heat. When I built my pit, I built what some folks call a hybrid: I can either cook as a traditional offset with baffle plates spaced to evenly distribute heat & smoke; or as a RF with the baffle plates stacked tightly together. Same results, I get better fuel effeciency in the RF configuration. That said, the difference, at least in my experience is pretty small. I recently cooked a 60#-65# hog with and 7 hour cook time in RF configuration and used 12 splits total (yea I track fuel consumption as part of my cook log); doubt I would have used more than 15 splits in traditional offset mode.
__________________
I'm Dave
Got a bunch of cooking toys and a custom metal fabrication shop where I spend my time building all sorts of smokers & outdoor cooking gear.
dwfisk is offline   Reply With Quote