You’re right, what you want is the “observed” baro reading on site.
But there won’t be much correction difference between 29.5 and 30.0.
Certainly not enough to explain the massive CF on that sheet.
The elevation correction for 600’ is .64 in/hg....... so if the corrected baro was 30.10”, the observed should be 29.46”.

I’d love to see an uncorrected sheet to see if for some reason there is an anomaly with the bsfc numbers.

The bsfc is supposed to be the result of fuel flow divided by the uncorrected HP.
So, on the last line of the sheet the fuel flow is 356.4lbs/hr, and the result is .512.
For the result to be .512, the uncorrected power would be 696hp.
The corrected HP of 859.1 is just over 23.4% higher than 696.

If you look at Greg’s dyno sheet, which is in a town that’s about 300’ higher than where Wades motor was tested(and the sheet shows the baro as 29.13”), looking at the fuel flow and bsfc numbers you get an uncorrected power number of 830.8.
The corrected number is 921.5, which works out to a 10.9% CF.

So, how is it that Wades motor, which was tested at a facility that sits at a 300’ lower elevation, and had a higher observed baro pressure...... ends up with what appears to be a nearly 13% higher CF?

What am I missing there?