View Single Post
Unread 08-29-2013, 04:36 PM   #23
dwfisk
Babbling Farker

 
dwfisk's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-01-12
Location: Fairfield, FL
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
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
Weber 26.75 OTG w/CI grates & SJ/WSM Mini
Home built 24"x72" reverse flow stick burner trailer with 18"x40" grill w/CI grates and upright SS gas oven/smoker.
Home built 48" fire pit with a 30"x30" Santa Maria style ranch grill.
Home built lump charcoal retort, iGrill & a bunch of other cooking toys.
dwfisk is offline   Reply With Quote