Replacing Fireview with....?

Apologies to all, it has been a while since I have been on!

We are 5 weeks into burning wood this year already.

Wife said the house is too cold and wants a bigger stove, again.

The fireview has been the main beloved workhorse for a quite a long time now and would be a sad day to replace, even sadder that I just fully rebuilt it last season. A corn burner is our secondary heat source, which would be great to be able to put to rest for the majority of the season.

I'm on the fence with either an Ideal Steel, Progress Hybrid, Blaze King and or other brand stoves. I've been pretty gun shy after taking a bad gamble with a stove prior to the fireview.

10-12 hours of real heat per load MN cold weather heat is the goal here. Heating an old 2 story log farm house.

Also, I have a pretty tall hard drafting stack especiallywhen it gets some heat moving through it.

Wisdom and opinions are welcome, I am not meaning to start a Ford, Chevy/Dodge type thing.

Thanks!

 

Just send your old stove here it will be more than appreciated... hope you find the right stove brother. Gotta keep the wife happy.

 

Haha... wanna buy a used Harman Oakwood? (inside joke)

The IS has been a good stove so far, but can't say now it would differ from your Fireview, or from a PH.

 

Hey old buddy- in suffering with the aka (Jokewood saga) Satisfied with the IS? If I remember correctly, we have similar setups with flues. Glad you are still around Branch.

 

Follow up Q Branch, what's your pick the Ideal or Absolute? I see you were a beta tester.

 

Frankly, if I hadn't already decided to upgrade to the IS and now currently own it, I'd prefer the AS for three reasons:
1) less smoke/ash spill due to side-loading door
2) my setup works a lot better with a right-hand side-load than a front-load w/ hinges on the right (my wood stack has to be to the right!)
3) I prefer the looks of the AS in my hearth (even though in pics I didn't like it as much)

Frankly also, the heat output of the larger IS doesn't seem proportional to its increased size, but that could be all in my head (for the 3 reasons above). I will say, it does about the same job as my smaller Oakwood... I think you had a worse experience with that stove that I. It was a PITA, but still a damm good heater when running right.

But I can't speak to your situation as to whether the larger firebox will show up in a very significant improvement over the Fireview. The big improvement for me has been the lower/longer burns in shoulder season. On the coldest days, though, I couldn't really say for sure if this larger stove heats better than the Oakwood... that thing blasted the heat, even though I went through a bit more wood in a shorter burn cycle. It had a high gear that I'm not sure I've found yet on the IS (but then, I'm keeping this thing well under 800f!).

 

I have no real experience with the Fireview (my parents have one, but it is in a very small house, so they never stretch its legs).

In our large house, the Absolute would make a great second stove. We have one, uninstalled, just for that, but my wife just developed a longing for an insert. The AS was a lot of fun to run, and I think it will prove to be a more durable design in the long haul.

The PH and IS are similar in output, with advantage to the PH. (that advantage washes out on a ten hour burn. It is a peak burn/shorter cycle burn where you see a real difference between the two)

Advantage PH with side door (less gasket, less mess, greater durability). I did enjoy N/S burns in the IS. But easier to load max length splits in PH.

Advantage IS air control (shoulder season burns)

 

Oldhippie can give you a good Fireview to AS direct comparison.

 

After many years without, we added a flue damper, and have been very happy with the additional control. We also tried a barometric damper with the AS but didn’t have it for the IS. It helped with the AS, but I find I don’t bother using it with the PH.

 

jdonna, I researched Blaze king (king), woodstock IS, hearthstone Mansfield and regency 5100.. I chose an IS, that's me
what size is your flue now? 6 or 8 inch king requires 8 inch as does regency
I also have crazy draft

calling BDF as he researched those stoves above and on limited Internet I cannot see my bookmarks

square footage insulation factors.. in my house 4 cord a year with 12 hour burns have become standard.. time that it's 10 below or colder go to 8 hour burns..

 

If you liked the fireview, I’m not sure you can go wrong with the Progress.

 

Well, I think first of all, if absolute heat output is a prime concern, then a stove with a larger firebox would serve best. Of the stoves you mention, the Blaze King, King model (they also make a Princess but it is considerably smaller) has the largest firebox and will simply hold more firewood and so deliver more heat per full load. It seems to be a very nice stove and was on my short list three years ago when I was in the market.

I ended up buying an Ideal Steel, it has served very well and I am very pleased with it. The Progress hybrid was also on my short list.

A couple of points you may want to consider: A front opening door is much easier to clean the glass. A side opening door is <usually> easier to fill and will result in less smoke spillage into the house. This is only a consideration for the Progress hybrid as it is the only side loading door stove on your list. It is also a medium size stove, and the smallest on your list.

The Blaze King King has a huge firebox, is a catalytic based stove and has a huge base of very satisfied customers. No question in my mind that it would provide the most heat per load (such as for overnight) of the stoves you list, plus it has an automatic damper which apparently works quite well. A couple of downsides are: 1) it requires an 8" chimney (flue). They used to list a 6" flue as an option but that seems to have been removed. My suggestion would be to call them if you are planning on using that stove on a 6" chimney. 2) it does not have a grate and so requires ashes be shoveled out, or a plug removed and the ashes shifted through that hole when the stove is mostly empty. A grate in a stove with a sealed ashpan (Ideal Steel or Progress for example) is easier to clean the ash out of it while it is actually running. 3) the combustors are expensive for a B.K.K. at ~$375 or so. Blaze King will claim up to 10 years for combustor life buy my experience is more like 2 years or so and so the cost of the combustor you will need for any stove you are considering becomes important over, say, 10 years or more of owning and using the stove. 4) the Blaze King King is a little more difficult to remove the combustor for occasional cleaning while an Ideal Steel, for example, allows the combustor to be removed in a matter of seconds with no tool whatsoever. 5) If running very low and slow, I think the Ideal Steel is the best design to run cleanly because the combustor is located directly over the top / center of the firebox and so is easier to keep 'lit'.

There is one other stove that I considered carefully, and it is a very direct competitor (IMO) to a Blaze King King; that stove is the Regency 5100. It also has a huge firebox, about the same as a B.K.K., is combustor based but is also a hybrid stove with a secondary burn ability. A very nice looking stove, very well made, from a company with an outstanding reputation and a limited lifetime warranty (!!). I suggest you check one of those out as well; I have seen one in person at a local dealer and in some ways like it better than the B.K.K. although it does not have the automatic draft feature of the Blaze King.

In the end, I would suggest considering what you really need out of a stove and try to solve that problem (or those problems) directly. You specifically mention your wife is cold, you want more heat out of a stove and long burn times so again, a big firebox is what will deliver there. There is no magic method by which a small to medium stove can possibly compete with a large firebox. My own choice would be for a cat. based or hybrid type of stove, which is all that you mention in your list. As I read your post, I tend to think the B.K.K. would best serve you and your family, especially during those very cold Minnesnowta winters. I live in the northeast and while we have 'real' winters, they are not nearly as cold as I think yours will be and that extra cubic foot of firebox will almost certainly have a great value. Especially so if you do not have ready and easy access to long burning hardwoods.

I think you are on an excellent path doing this kind of research by the way, and all the learning you can do before actually purchasing a stove will pay you back 100 times over as you have to use the stove.

Best of luck in your search.

Brian

 

High Efficiency Wood Stoves USA Made

I would agree with this. If the fireview is too small then you have got to go bigger.

Fireview is 55k max btu and about 2 cf. The AS is just a hybridized fireview at 2.5 CF, just 77% eff, and 60k btu max. Hardly an upgrade from what I can see. The IS is 3.2 cubic feet, 65k btu, and 82% eff. The PH is 80k btu, 81% eff, and a little smaller than the IS at 2.8 CF. So if the fireview is not enough, don't screw around, get the PH if you want to stick with Woodstock. You really have to wonder how the smaller and less efficient PH can make more peak btu than a steel IS. It seems obvious to me that when Woodstock states "max" btu output that it is just for an instant and not really representative of the whole burn cycle. Luckily you can look at firebox size, efficiency, and burn time to realize that the bigger stoves make more heat per load.

Moving to another brand makes specification comparisons very difficult because whether they will admit it or not, companies lie. They imbelish, they assume things, etc. I feel pretty good about comparing specs within a brand's offerings but not brand to brand. Just the EPA required things like emissions rate and measured efficiency. You can't even trust firebox sizes.

Going to blaze king, the king is 82% efficient and has a 4.3 CF firebox full of wood. If it burns that wood in the same time that the PH does then it MUST be putting out more btu per hour. Just math but the BK company doesn't even post peak btu numbers but tells you about the 12 hour average at around 50k btu. Same deal with the smaller princess that I have at 2.8 cf and 81% efficient it the average output must be the same as the PH if they each consume the wood in the same amount of time. Just the math proves this.

Blaze king and Woodstock are the only established leaders in the cat stove world. They both know their stuff and have proven it.

Rather than screw around with that regency, have you seen the Kuma offering? It is very efficient with very high btu numbers.

Getting 12 hours shouldn't be too hard from any of the big cat stoves. Getting more heat than a fireview should also be very easy. Get a bigger cat stove.

 

All fine and well regarding our opinions of course but I certainly thing Vermont Castings knows how to make a catalytic wood stove and has been doing so for decades, as does Buck and a host of other companies.

And I would have about the same comment about 'screwing around with regency' because I thing they make an excellent product, have seen them in person and in- use, and believe they are the only wood stove manufacturer to offer a lifetime warranty. They have also been around for decades and have a wide base of satisfied customers. My own opinion is that a Regency F5100 will stand tall with a Blaze King King and compete with it very well in all aspects.

Brian

 

What a fun position to be in. Needing more power than a fireview. There are some folks that claim their non-cat can "burn" for 12 hours. If the 12 hour thing is very important to you then when you narrow down the choices a bit start asking owners about their actual burn times.

I just ordered another cat for my BK princess. It was 185$ total. I get about 2-3 years from them which is more than what the cat manufacturer says I should get based on the 12000-14000 hour life expectancy. Super easy to replace with no tools. The cat sits right on top of the fire and in the center of the top of the firebox. Not sure where Brian thinks the cat is but it's right there directly above the heat. The king's cat is more money because it is bigger. Again, I don't know what Brian is thinking but the price of the OEM king cat right now with free shipping and no sales tax is just 294$. You can expect to replace the cat in any stove at 12000-14000 hours of use regardless of the number of years that it takes to get there.

What the BK line offers that no other brand offers is the ability to burn for a short time at high output or a very long time at low output. You can choose, the thermostat setting maintains the desired output. Real owners really get the rated 30 hours from the 2.8 CF princess or 40 hours from the 4.3 CF king model. It's not a myth. That is measured by an active cat which is above 500 degrees and not some meaningless measurement of touchability or relightability. My stove is burning right now and I started this fire 15 hours ago. If desired you can turn up the thermostat and get shorter burns with more heat. The efficiencies of woodstocks and BKs are the same, just one stove allows you to burn it slower.

 

For the OP's desired 12 hour burns the regency will probably be okay. The Regency is a fast burner, 12 hours max. Compare that to the wide range of outputs available from a king that has the ability to burn low and slow for 40 hours or the ability to blast through a load in 12 depending on how much heat you need. No other stove from any brand can do that.

 

I do not know where that information is coming from but the installation of a damper will slow any stove. As the Regency is a cat. based stove of comparable dimensions of the Blaze King (comparing the King to the 5100 here specifically), they will hold virtually the same amount of wood. As their designs are almost identical regarding firebox, cat. placement, etc., I cannot imagine why one would produce more heat than the other or burn significantly and practically longer than the other.

As far as burn time, that is directly related to heat output. A load of firewood has a certain number of BTU's, and if burned with approximately the same efficiency, will yield approximately the same percentage of that potential heat. If one gets a longer burn, no matter how it is done, then the heat delivered over the time of that burn must be less. As a simple example, if a stove holds 100 lbs. of firewood, and that firewood contains ~6,400 BTU / pound, then the stove has been charged with 640,000 BTU of fuel. Given 80% efficiency, that yields about 510,000 BTU. So you can have 51,000 BTU for 10 hours, or ~25,000 BTU for 20 hours, ~100,000 BTU for 5 hours and so forth. No way around that. This is why I dismiss stated burn times because when they get really long, the stove is not putting out enough heat to keep the house warm. So a stove burning for two days does the user no good if it will not produce enough heat to actually maintain temperature in the house. Given that the O.P. is in one of the very coldest states in the US (continental US anyway), I believe long burn times are irrelevant because he is going to need to kick any stove way up beyond a snail's pace of burning to keep warm. At that point, really only the firebox size (fuel capacity) and efficiency come into play. All modern cat. stoves have very similar efficiency so the only variable is firebox size. That basically leaves the Blaze King King that was on the O.P.'s list or the Regency 5100, at least as far as I know. I believe a Buck 91 is of a similar size but has a somewhat unusual shaped firebox and so <probably> will not hold as much wood in actual practice, plus those side pieces of glass look like a nightmare to keep clean. But I have no direct knowledge or experience with them, and they too have their fans so that might be a valid choice also.

At any rate, that is my basic thinking on this and what I was trying to share with the OP. From what I understand of his situation, and what his complaints are now (need more heat), I would recommend the largest firebox practical that is available in a cat. based stove.

Oh and BTW: the Regency F5100 also uses a very expensive cat, similar to the Blaze King King. Certainly a consideration over 10 or 20 years of stove ownership and use.

Another recommendation would be to buy a stove that has a stainless steel cat., or at least a stove that S.S. cats are available for. I have used quite a few of both types and find the S.S. types to be wholly superior; they light faster and easier, are much more durable, do not spall or crack and are thinner, making the flue gas are effectively larger. I cannot think of a single advantage that a ceramic has vs. a S.S. type.

Brian

 

Correction, not enough to keep YOUR house warm but then again, you've never tried it. It is more than enough to keep mine warm for 95% of the year. Turns out that this is the case for most homes but don't fret, the flexibility to burn low and slow or hot and fast provides you the option to select the amount of heat you need.

We pretty much agree Brian. Good post. Where we differ is that I don't see any reason to take a risk on a lower quality or less known cat stove with lower performance specifications. All of the cat offerings from Woodstock and BK are very good. Folks like Lopi even put out a cat stove but that ended up being a disaster. The OP seems to have had a bad experience from Harman who is also a long standing brand.

The fireview is too small for the OP so there are lots of larger options that are all quite good. Other than burn times of 12 hours, is there any other criteria? Is the flue a 6" flue? That would be a limitation.