lbaker wrote:The comparison between the two stoves was not intended, merely the comparison of the one stove with and without the liner. But the Herald doesn't hold a candle to the Wing's Best in this application. I have been running the Wing's Best for about 4 days and couldn't be happier. It even burned wood efficiently, and I was just using pine to cure everything, and burn off some new paint . The heat was quick but not overpowering and remained steady. I can't think of any appliance other than a radiant floor that would compare. I will admit that the Herald did well enough this winter, keeping us able to work comfortably all winter in a half insulated garage in Maine, burning 3/4 of a ton of coal, that I paid $260 for at Tractor Supply. And I got the stove free.
The intention of my post was to add to the discussion of lined vrs unlined. It's been said that " it would be nice if we could compare the same stove, with and without the liner." So, that's what I did. I will repeat that this was the result from this stove, which was completely taken down and rebuilt, and resealed last year. I have no intention of doing the same to the Wing's Best. Why mess with success?
This topic of lined verse unlined has come up before. One I remember is DLJ said that he used his Glenwood #6, many years ago without a liner and more recently with it lined. The #6 is the near twin to your Wings Best, so it would be good to compare with. Dave mentioned that he wanted to remove the liner again to run the same test.
Protection of the fire pot ? As Coalnewbie pointed out there are many stoves without liner and they seem to hold up if not abused. For many years I used a couple of pot belly stoves that were unlined. One large, the other small. It was very common that the firepots were glowing red. In fact until I did a better job of sealing doors and dampers on cheaply built small one it was tough to not have it burning cherry red.
Didn't seem to hurt either of them.
But protecting the pot is only part of what the liner does to help. The other part that is often mentioned is keeping the firebed hotter to get more complete combustion of coal and gases. Then extract that heat further downstream in the system by lengthening the flue pathway before the chimney. Either by design of base heater, base burner, oak back pipe, and/or, longer stove pipe.
If you look at a lot of old pictures with stoves they often moved the stoves out more into the spaces being heated and used longer lengths of stove pipe than we tend to do today. With a lined pot, using more stove pipe is a cheap, simple way to extract heat before the chimney.
I think the liner would also help the stove operate over a greater range of temperatures. By retaining more heat in the firebed, the stove should be able to run slower in without stalling in warmer weather.
If you look at common practice of wood/coal ranges of that same time period, many were designed to have easily removable liners to make better use when switching fuel types. The six firebricks of my Glenwood that line the firebox for coal are held in place by interlocking with each other as they slide down into position in sequence. They were designed to be removed simply by pulling two cotter pins, removing two cast iron retainers, then lifting them out the top in reverse sequence. Then, to use wood, interlocking cast iron plate liners were put in their place. That gave more room in the firebox for longer burn times. However, no matter wood or coal, it was recommended by the manufactures not to use the range without some type of liner to protect the stove's firebox walls.
Not sure if all did it, but Glenwood offered brick liners as an option with their base heaters and oaks. That was at a time when many of their stoves were being used in areas of the country where wood was the main fuel. I haven't seen anything in print, but I wonder if the optional brick liners were meant to be used if the owner that lived in an area where coal was the primary fuel ?