Replacing my Hot Blast 1400

[cutfast]

I would like to replace my Hot Blast 1400 over the summer.
I would like to get a wood furnace with secondary burn.
I would like to keep my budget under $2500.
I have been watching the thread on
Introducing Brand New Wood Furnace to Market - The Drolet Tundra!
It has a few bugs that they seam to be fixing.
I have seen The Drolet Tundra on sale in my area for $1625.
I now have a chance to buy a Fire Chief FC700 that is only one year old for about $1200 and it looks like new.
From what I little I know about the Fire Chief FC700 it seams like a good deal.
So any info on if I should buy the Fire Chief FC700 or just get The Drolet Tundra would be great.
or any info on other wood furnaces in my budget.

 

[stihly dan]

Do you have the right size chimney for a secondary burn appliance?

 

[cutfast]

What size of chimney do they require ?
I think the chimney I use now is 6"

 

[brenndatomu]

I'd be inclined to spend the extra $400 on the Tundra...from what I know about the Firechief...well built, not a clean burner though, which equates to reduced efficiency.
Yup, 6" chimney

 

[flotek]

The tundra is the best bang for your buck . You will use far less wood than a hotblast or fire chief and get the benefit of clean long burns and all accomplished on an automated system that actuates incoming air on its own according to your thermostat . Yes the drolet is not quite as refined as the caddy but it's not too far off and Frankly for your price range I'd even go as far as to say you would be a fool to buy anything else . Anything else in that range is going to be a dirty burning wood hog by modern standards . Yes there's lots of furnaces that would heat your home but none as high tech like this unit .i love my heat max / tundra I would hate to have to go back to my old furnace with its heavy wood use ,dramatic heat swings and adjusting by hand of the manual controls to regulate temperature. It burns forever (12hr +)on good seasoned hard wood that may not seem too far off of some other box store units when filled but consider this :use your good judgement here. .. they have a firebox double the size of the tundra (3.5cft)so in the real world that equates to twice the wood use for same burn time !.for safety it automatically shuts air down on its own if it gets too hot and the clean burn stops the danger of accumulating creosote

 

[Whitespider]

You will use far less wood than a hotblast or fire chief and get the benefit of clean long burns and all accomplished on an automated system that actuates incoming air on its own according to your thermostat.
I would hate to have to go back to my old furnace with its heavy wood use, dramatic heat swings and adjusting by hand of the manual controls to regulate temperature.
...a firebox double the size of the tundra (3.5cft)so in the real world that equates to twice the wood use for same burn time
...clean burn stops the danger of accumulating creosote

Ummmm.......
The FC700 has a draft blower controlled by a wall thermostat, manual adjustment ain't necessary... so much for "dramatic heat swings" (at least I don't see them with my thermostat controlled draft blower system... I don't see any heat swings at all).

Just because the firebox is bigger don't mean you have to fill it, but the extra capacity is nice when you need it. I get (with the DAKA) about the same burn time whether I load the box ½ full or completely full... more wood just means more heat (i.e., hotter fire), it has very little effect on burn time. Heating demand is what shortens burn time... and that will be true in any wood-fired appliance with an "automated" draft system.

The FC700 has a secondary burn chamber... from the website...
"• Secondary Combustion Chamber - Increases fuel efficiency for this heating system while re-burning smoke and wood gases before they are vented up the chimney."

It also includes a 3-speed circulation blower with cold air return filter box, and a cast grate/baffle system (lifetime warranty on the grate)... and it's been around for a long time, Fire Chief ain't in the process of "working out the bugs".

I ain't recommending one over the over... but the above post, which is recommending one over the other, flat ain't being honest in the comparison. Personally I'd be hesitant to purchase a Tundra until they've seen more use and had time to "work out the bugs" and issues that have been brought up in the other thread... and time to see if any more show up. The FC700 has been a solid performer with a (relatively) long history, a proven track record, and, from what I've heard, excellent customer service... and all of that's worth something that shouldn't be ignored either.

Like I said, I ain't recommending one over the other...
But, before you buy, I will recommend you take time to separate hype from fact, and BS from truth... about either unit.
*

 

[flotek]

Daka or fire chief doesn't have true secondary combustion to burn off the smoke nothing different than the woodblast unit really just another campfire in a box with a baffle over it . To my knowledge The thermostat on it just turns on a forced induced blower. Like the hotblast or fire chief kit does ( get ready to feed it alot of wood at this point )just ask the owb guys about their forced blowers when they are going . That air coming in has to go somewhere and that's straight up the flue along with your heat. ..The caddy and tundra use a natural draft principle which is completely unique . Please realize The laws of physics don't apply to white spider and his trusty overfired daka he can get same btu and burn time regardless of how much fuel is in his fire box . But to each his own but the op was asking about this model and I have firsthand experience running the unit he was asking about

 

[brenndatomu]

Just because the firebox is bigger don't mean you have to fill it, but the extra capacity is nice when you need it. I get (with the DAKA) about the same burn time whether I load the box ½ full or completely full... more wood just means more heat (i.e., hotter fire), it has very little effect on burn time. Heating demand is what shortens burn time... and that will be true in any wood-fired appliance with an "automated" draft system.
The FC700 has a secondary burn chamber... from the website...
"• Secondary Combustion Chamber - Increases fuel efficiency for this heating system while re-burning smoke and wood gases before they are vented up the chimney."

My Yukon has a monster firebox, I found it hard to get a good hot fire going if starting from cold and doing a small load. I filled half of the firebox with firebrick, it made a big difference, same(or more) heat, less wood.
Look at a cutaway of the FC, no real secondary burn there, kinda like the Yukons, get a kinda-sorta secondary burn on high fire, for a lil bit, sometimes...if you are lucky (actually, the Yukon Husky/Polar series works better than that, but still not a great secondary burn)

 

[cutfast]

You guys make a lot of good points about about these two burners.
I know what it's like to go thru a lot of wood as I have used the Hot Blast for a least 15 years.
When I looked at the Fire Chief's website I was hoping it would use less wood than the Hot Blast or
at least have a longer burn cycle. I would like one that has at least a 8 hour burn cycle and the
Hot Blast has never been close to that.
If that's not the case I'll be buying the Tundra or something similar.

 

[stihly dan]

Spidey has a good point, DO YOUR RESEARCH. This will likely be in use for awhile. Look at the info and listen what is said here, remembering people tend to be bias to what works for THEM. I either bought the best, or am bias. I'm going to say the best because I'm biased to myself.

 

[Whitespider]

Daka doesn't have true secondary combustion to burn off the smoke
Also The laws of physics don't apply to white spider and his trusty overfired daka he can get same btu and burn time regardless of how much fuel is in his fire box.

That ain't what I said @flotek , and you damn well know it.

The "Secondary Combustion Chamber" was from the Fire Chief website, not the DAKA website. The FC700 description specifically says it has a cast baffle system that puts air both under and above the grate and has a Secondary Combustion Chamber that Increases fuel efficiency for this heating system while re-burning smoke and wood gases.

AND‼ I never said I get the, "same btu and burn time regardless of how much fuel is in his fire box." I specifically said, "more wood just means more heat (i.e., hotter fire), it has very little effect on burn time."
That's true in any box... a 2-inch piece of wood will burn just as fast no matter how many other 2-inch pieces are in the box. Burn time is not much affected by how full the box is... it's the type of wood, the size of the pieces, and how much air you feed it (heating demand). Today started below zero and never made it out'a single digits... and I went 11 hours without loading the box (6:00 AM to 5:00 PM), the draft blower kicked in twice for maybe 15 minutes and the house temperature never varied from 71-72° all day. So much for your short burn times and using a lot of wood... any machine is only as good as the guy running it I guess.

I should also mention I've never, not once, filled my firebox... not even on the coldest of nights. My "big" firebox takes 25-inch long pieces of wood, and I cut everything to 16 inches. Do you get that?? A full one-third of my firebox has never been used (by me)... never‼ When I say I load it ½ full that's actually a huge overstatement... because of the firewood length it's more like a little less than one-quarter filled‼
*

 

[Whitespider]

I would like one that has at least a 8 hour burn cycle...

You need to consider where you live... Wisconsin. You also need to consider anything else that effects your heating demands, such as the size and type of house, how thermally efficient that house is, even the location of the house (protected from wind or out in the open, in a shaded or sunny spot, etc.). No person, and no furnace, can guaranty you'll see 8-hour burn times... or 6-hour... or 12-hour. If your house is cold you're gonna' put more air to the fire so it makes more heat... that's gonna' cut burn time significantly. If, after the flame stage, the furnace ain't able to produce enough heat to maintain your personal comfort level, you're gonna' put more wood to it even if it's only been 2 hours since the last loading... that's gonna' increase fuel consumption significantly. A larger firebox allows more fuel input, which means more heat from a lower burn rate, allowing a longer heating cycle... it doesn't cause the fire to burn longer, it allows you to burn at a lower rate. At the same time, during times of low heat demand, it allows you to load less wood, which makes less heat at the same burn rate... or same heating cycle length.

flotek mentioned the "laws of physics"... well... a simple-to-understand law is... if ya' need more heat, you're gonna' burn more wood over a shorter time period. There ain't no getting around that... and a 50% smaller firebox with 10-20% better "fuel" efficiency ain't gonna' sidestep the laws of physics either.
50% less wood burned 20% more efficiently is still 30% less heat (well, not exactly, but you see the point)...
And the same amount of wood burned over twice as long a time period, even 20% more efficiently, is still a whole lot less heat per hour...
There ain't no friggin' magic in it... depending on your heating demand, fuel efficiency does not automatically equal heating efficiency... and if the appliance ain't heating efficient for your needs, than fuel efficiency flies out the window.
Sometimes the solution to something is raw horse power... and in that sense, there's no replacement for displacement.

Now I don't know what your heating demand is, so I can in no way recommend an appliance for you... I won't even pretend to. But I can tell you that just because someone else gets 12-hour burn (heating) times with a certain appliance at their demand level, in no way means you will get the same at your demand level. You may get longer, even much longer... or you may get shorter, even much shorter.

I don't have a dog in this fight cutfast, I'm only recommending that you don't buy into something that flat necessarily ain't true. I'm only recommending you think about your per-hour heating demand before forking out your hard earned cash.
*

 

[laynes69]

If a furnace isn't adequately keeping up, it still can be fuel efficient. It just means it's too small for the space to be heated.

No matter how it's sliced, a proper secondary burn unit is hands down much more efficient than a non secondary burn. They can be turned down to a point where the wood will almost smolder while the smoke above will be burned creating the heat. This creates a longer cleaner burn. Do this in a standard firebox and it will smolder, the potential heat will be lost in the form of creosote in the chimney. Of course you can burn a standard firebox cleanly, but it requires excess air, which can compromise burn times.

You can buy a 80% or 90% gas furnace, an old truck that gets 5 mpg or a newer one that gets 12. Same applies to woodstoves and furnaces. Secondary combustion isn't a hype, it helps improve efficiency. If someone buys a furnace that won't heat their house, it's not because it's an EPA furnace, it's too small period. Do a heat loss calculation on the home, and buy accordingly.

 

[Whitespider]

If a furnace isn't adequately keeping up, it still can be fuel efficient. It just means it's too small for the space to be heated.
No matter how it's sliced, a proper secondary burn unit is hands down much more efficient than a non secondary burn.
You can buy a 80% or 90% gas furnace, an old truck that gets 5 mpg or a newer one that gets 12.

No matter how it's sliced??
So if I hook a 4-place horse trailer to the back of my Pinto and run down the road with the throttle mashed against the floor the fuel efficiency don't fly out the window??

Yeah, you can buy an 80% or 90% efficiency rated gas furnace... but which will make more heat??
A 70,000 BTU gas furnace rated at 90% efficient, or a 120,000 BTU gas furnace rated at 80% efficient??
No matter how it's sliced??
Which furnace will use more fuel if your house requires 65,000 BTU's per hour to stay warm??

This thread was started as a comparison of two wood-fired furnaces... the Tundra with a 3½ cu/ft firebox, and the FC700 with a 7 cu/ft firebox.
OK, modern secondary burn is wonderful technology... but it ain't magic. It ain't possible to burn 50% less fuel 20% more efficiently and make more, or even the same amount of heat. And it ain't possible to burn the same amount of fuel 20% more efficiently, over twice the time frame, and make more, or even the same amount of heat per hour.
No matter how it's sliced.

The BTU rating for gas furnaces is the fuel input not the heat output, they burn a consistent fuel at a known constant BTU value, at a known constant rate... in a sense, the BTU rating for a gas furnace can be (sort'a) compared to the firebox size of a wood-fired furnace, but in no way compared to the output. And very often, depending on application, the 80%/120,000 BTU furnace will be the better, more fuel efficient furnace than the 90%/70,000 BTU unit.
Until someone comes up with a modern, high efficiency, secondary burn, wood-fired furnace with a 7 cu/ft firebox... well... than... modern, high efficiency, secondary burn, wood-fired furnaces won't always be the best choice for everyone and every application... no matter how it's sliced.

To say something like...
"No matter how it's sliced, a proper secondary burn unit is hands down much more efficient than a non secondary burn."
...simply ain't true. Unless of course, you believe in magic.
*

 

[NSMaple1]

A proper secondary burn unit can get more heat out of the same amount of wood than a non-secondary burn unit. It burns & gets heat out of what would otherwise go up the chimney as smoke or stick to it in the form of creosote. More efficient. Been there, done that, seen it with my own eyes. So put me in the 'believe-in-magic' corner too, I guess.

 

[Whitespider]

A proper secondary burn unit can get more heat out of the same amount of wood than a non-secondary burn unit
So put me in the 'believe-in-magic' corner too, I guess.

Nobody is arguing that... that ain't the magic part.
But you can't extract 20% (heck, even 30%) more heat from the same amount of fuel, while extending the burn time time 100% (twice as long), and produce more heat per hour... that's the magic part.
Every time I read those wild claims of a whole bunch more heat and twice the burn (heating) times... well, I'm gonna' call BS... the only way that adds-up is with magic.
And when I read that a firebox only ½ the size, burning 20% (heck, even 30%) more efficiently produces a whole bunch more heat and twice the burn (heating) times... well, I'm gonna' laugh... 'cause that would require more than magic, it would take a miracle.

Well... I suppose it's possible the user didn't have a clue how to use or run the previous box.
I mean, I guess, if the user didn't know what he was doing... I mean total ignorance of proper use... that could explain it... maybe??
*

 

[naturelover]

As was said, with good wood, I can shut the air off, smolder the wood, and burn the smoke in the 30.

Without a re-burn of some sorts, you are going to have to allow more air to get a flame going for heat instead of smoldering the wood and burning the smoke for heat. It's gonna burn up faster because you can't smolder the wood and aren't able to capture the btu's that are available in that smoke.

Least that's my thought, maybe someday I'll run a cycle with the baffles out of the 30 and see how it does....




Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[mooseracing]

As was said, with good wood, I can shut the air off, smolder the wood, and burn the smoke in the 30.

So you must not be using the factory design if you can shut the air off. Also to get the smoke burning you need to get a hot fire going first, otherwise it just puts out unburnt smoke because it isn't hot enough to ignite. The new stoves only put out good heat in the first part of the burn cycle where there is smoke, once it is charcoal they are useless for good heat output or burning up the coals.

 

[Whitespider]

The new stoves only put out good heat in the first part of the burn cycle where there is smoke, once it is charcoal they are useless for good heat output or burning up the coals.

Hmmmmmm........ huh??
Now... where the heck have I heard that before??
Pretty sure it was from a guy livin' some goodly distance north of the Mason-Dixon
*

 

[Whitespider]

Also to get the smoke burning you need to get a hot fire going first, otherwise it just puts out unburnt smoke because it isn't hot enough to ignite.

I ain't buying the "smoldering" wood and burning smoke either, the smoke needs to be hot enough before it will ignite.
Enough heat is more important than adding air... you can add all the air you want to smoke that ain't hot enough, and it flat won't ignite.

In my "smoke dragon" I actually heat my home most of the day with nothing but a coal bed... up to 15 hours on occasion.
And, it rarely "smokes".

My thermostat automatically drops to 67° at night, when I get up in the morning (between 4-5:00) the house is usually around 66-67°, the draft blower is running on what's left of a coal bed and I'll load the box. At 5:00 AM the thermostat jumps to 71° keeping the draft blower cycling on and off according to air jacket temperature... depending on temperature predictions I may top-off the box one or two times during the morning warm-up. I get a hot, clean burn during the "warm-up" while the draft blower runs... and I use the time to build a coal bed. The colder the day, the deeper I build that coal bed.

Once the house reaches temp the draft blower shuts down... and the only combustion air is what finds it's way around the draft blower wheel and goes in under the grate (under the coal bed). That air keeps the coals heating as it flows up through them... and they heat enough to cycle the circulation blower on and off anywhere from a couple times an hour to maybe 5 or 6 times an hour depending on the size of the bed. My big brick chimney runs up through the center of the house, it's always warm, and the colder it is outside the harder it draws. That works out perfectly because on a colder day it pulls a bit more air through the larger coal bed and makes more heat, causing the circulation blower to cycle more often. That in turn maintains the house at a steady temperature... a steady temperature actually regulated by outside temperature via the chimney draft (and how big I build the coal bed in the morning).

I've gotten really good at "guessing" the size of the coal bed needed for the day... and it ain't really that critical as long as it's big enough. Heck, when it's a really super cold day I may build it 10 inches deep. Actually the coal bed and furnace slowly loses ground to the cold (really slowly) so the draft blower will kick on once or twice during the day for a few minutes... which, by blowing air in under the coals, brings them back screaming friggin' hot. When temperatures are above zero we rarely need to add any fuel until around sundown... below zero the wife may toss in 3-4 splits mid afternoon if she notices the draft blower running a little bit longer than normal. After sundown, as the temperature is dropping, I start building the nighttime coal bed so it's ready by the time the thermostat drops to 67° at 10:30 PM... but I'm usually asleep by 8:00 PM or shortly after, so 7:30 PM is about when the last fuel is added to the box.

Burning Bur Oak (which makes big, long-burning coals relatively fast) I normally can expect an 8-9 hour heating cycle overnight. A -20° night will shorten that, and if'n it's 40 MPH winds with that extreme cold it can shorten it a ton, down to 6 hours even. But that's a rare night and to be expected; the higher heat demand will use more fuel over a shorter time... with any sort of heater.
During most day times I get something between 9-15 hours heating cycle depending on wind, temperature... and the size of the coal bed I build in the morning.

In a "smoke dragon" it's the coal bed, a coal bed properly fed air from underneath the grate that keeps your house at a steady temperature for hours.
If ya' can't get the air under the coal bed they won't make near as much heat... not even close... the air needs to get to all the coals.
The "flame stage" is used for raising the house temperature in the morning and building the coal bed... and the "flame stage" is run hot, so the thing burns clean (no smoke).
If you're getting "temperature swings" in the house it's because you're running the "flame stage" at the wrong times and not building/using the coal bed to it's potential... you're flat not running the box right.
*