The older stoves where the pipe goes off the top of the back are better than the Glenwood baseheater burning wood.
Why would this be? So an Oak or a pot belly would burn wood better than a base heater cause of the exhaust hole placement?
Back when I was burning wood, I ran both an oak and my Glenwood base heater. The oak was better than the Glenwood in overall performance burning wood. The position of the stove pipe off the top of the stove kept smoke from coming into the house while the Glenwood won't always do that. In the daily use, day after day, month after month, you come to see limitations of these old stoves burning wood that are hard to summarize in short notes like these. Both stoves heated well. I would run my Glenwood in base burner mode once the fire was well established. I think the biggest difference in burn time was the quality of the wood and how well you could get it stacked into the stove. All in all, the Oak was more pleasant to run, never had smoke come into the room, that I remember. Probably had a little but it was so minimal it went basically unnoticed. The Glenwood on the other hand, that was not the case. It was more prone to letting in a big puff of smoke at times. That I felt at the time was due to the placement of the chimney. I recall opening the lower front door and watching the smoke almost coming out, you could see it all filled up in the top of the stove and the draft sucking the smoke out the middle of the back. If I forgot to look and just opened both front doors, I'd get notable smoke into the room. That never happened with the Oak. The Glenwood did have the advantage when it got kicked into base burner mode, you could feel the heat coming out of the base of that stove - real nice in a drafty old farm house.
I've never used a register plate as talked about here, maybe they would make the stove run better with wood, but I honestly can't say I felt any need. I'll also tell you to get 12 hour burns I'd fill either stove up a lot more than shown in the video above. I used to take the wood and stack it up in the stove to the very top. I'd pop open the top plate on the stove and fill from the top stuffing as much wood in as I could possibly squeeze in. I'd be jiggling the wood around so there was the least air space possible. I'd be selecting wood pieces just the right size to fill in all the gaps. More wood in - longer burn times.
Where I lived at the time had some serious winters. Not as bad as the Tug Hill area of New York but pretty darned close. 40 below winter days and nights were common. The coldest I lived through up there was about 52 below zero. But that was only one day. Let me tell you to keep a late 1700's built house warm with no central heat just with the Oak and the Glenwwod was an achievement. I kept indoor plants and never lost any.
If I had to burn wood again, I'd jump on a modern stove deigned for wood. These old stoves are great with coal. They are not even close to a well made modern stove. I've also used Jotel wood stoves, Vermont castings wood stoves and another one I can't remember the name of. All of them, modern well designed wood burning stoves. All of them definitely better burning wood than older stoves. You do have to size the stove right for the space you are heating. I could get more heat out of the older stove if I wanted by pushing it than the modern ones. But for ease of use, efficient use of wood, good burn times and just general overall performance, the new wood stoves are better. For me, no contest.