Stove Reccomemdations

[MTWoodBurner]

I’ve lurked here off and on for years but never had the need to post before now so thanks to everyone for all of the info I have gathered over the years.

I need/want to replace a PE Standard built in the early 90’s that appears to have been over fired a few times.

26x32 slab footprint with an open garage and restroom downstairs where the wood stove is located. Ceiling height is 10’

Floor between is uninsulated, and above is a bedroom, kitchen/living room and a bedroom with a closet, Bedroom has a loft above so 2nd floor ceiling is vaulted except for the bedroom/bathroom.

Money is alway an object but can afford whatever I need, but I work hard for my money so savings are a plus.

I have an 8” flue, 24-26ish feet from top of the stove to the cap.

I would really like long burn times (10 hrs or longer when needed) and a large firebox. My current stove is 2cf and I find it too small to get much inside if there is a good bed of coals without breaking them up good, otherwise I hit the top when loading.

I don’t care if it catalytic or non catalytic, what I want is a good stove that will do the job and if that means maintenance of the catalyst every few years then so be it.

I do have a heat pump that I run along with burning wood 24/7 but when I need heat the most (below zero) it will be of no use so this stove in the most important time will be my primary source.

I am in far NW Montana and burn red fir/ larch.

Any and all help is appreciated.

 

[all night moe]

Blaze King ....King
Large stove, deep belly, and 8'' flue. Pretty much what you asked for.
Con: not cheap. Then again....no new stove is cheap, especially with an 8'' flue collar.

 

[stoveliker]

I have a BK in my basement with 1.5 floors above that. 27 ft plus a longish horizontal run of 4 ft.

Works like a charm, heating all my home to 70 at least down to 0 F with 10 hr burns at that temp for the 2.9 cu ft firebox.

70s home with mediocre wall insulation but excellent air sealing and R57 in the attics. 1700 sq ft plus 825 in the basement.
Warmer climate though.

If you have an 8" ID chimney pipe (or 8" *insulated* liner in masonry), I second the BK King.
If it's 8" OD (so 6" ID) chimney pipe, get a Princess or 30.2 model.

There are good tube stoves too, e.g. PE Alderlea T6 that'll give more heat (and shorter burn times) at their max output but won't be able to do 20+ hrs on a load in shoulder season when you need less heat. That might work as well given that shoulder season is perfect for heat pumps.

 

[EbS-P]

If the 8” is in good shape. A BK king would be my choice. Lining for a 6” stove probably makes something like a big Drolet on par with a BK king but I would price it out.

 

[MTWoodBurner]

BK is what I felt I needed, I was leaning toward the Princess 32 for strictly costs va the King reasons but didn’t know how big of a deal it was to have the 8” flue on it.

The other that I had considered was the Buck 91 but the BK seems to be a legend in the wood heat world. I didn’t mention these before because I wanted opinions based on your thoughts and not mine which I got.

Why is the BTU rating literally half on the BK stoves (and the Buck) and yet they are so much better for large areas? I know there is some trickery in this that I don’t understand but would like to.

 

[stoveliker]

Their design has expanded the output range at the bottom,.but they still can go full bore.

Numbers given depend on the way it was tested, and there are a lot of variables there that may end up not reflecting normal usage. (Testing ending at 80% of load gone and averaging the BTU over those hours, vs +100% gone which takes many more hours etc.)

Folks here can burn down a 2.9 cubic ft firebox of oak in 7 hrs or so. (Or 30 hrs...!). That can be 50-60 lbs of oak. That's a number of BTUs in there that are released over 7 hrs, decreased by a 75% efficiency or so.

Do the math, get your BTUs based on user data rather than testing data.
Max BTU output from mfgs is often not reliable and surely not representative of what it would do every hour of the burn time (i.e. that rate might be reached only 1 hrs of the burn time).

For fir all this would be a bit lower BTUs (loaded), but still appreciable.
(edit: for FIR - rather than oak. d*mn autocorrect on my phone)

The thing most BK users will say is that not going in cycles (hot, slow cool down, repeat) means that the high output is rarely needed; the constant lower output meets the total BTU needs of the home and a higher pulse and glide is not needed. In fact comfort increases when having a constant temperature...

 

[MTWoodBurner]

That makes perfect sense to me. Thank you all for the replies.

 

[all night moe]

Your very welcome.
Keep us updated. It's great to hear results.