Firebrick replacement for Waterford Stanley wood cookstoves?

I have a cast iron Waterford STanley wood cookstove. It has been a joy to use, but it turns out that the firebox liners are made of cast iron backed by rockwool. After my first year of heavy use (I have had the stove for about 5 yrs.), the firebox liners are warped and need to be replaced. Aside from the problem that I can't get them out because of the warping, they are very expensive. It would cost about $500 to replace the sides and back. I would like to replace them with firebrick. Has anyone tried this? Do they stay in place? I am assuming that the 1 1/4" thick firebricks would be adequate, though I dont' know what is the temperature in the firebox during a hot fire which makes the flue thermometer read 400 deg. F prior to damping. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Thanks from the frontier of NW MT. I should add that the l. side firebox liner, which faces the outside of the stove (rather than the oven) has several holes drilled in it near the top. I don't know the function of these holes.

The holes in the left side panel would be my biggest concern they are most likely letting in some of the combustion (fresh air) for the fire. do you have the wood burning firebox or the coal burning kit, are you burning coal or wood?

I have the wood burning kit and am burning wood, mostly larch, fir and lodgepole. It is hard for me to imagine that there is not adequate air coming in through the circular vent below the firebox. I can try asking the Waterford folks and at Lehmans (again) for the function of the holes. THanks for your reply. Juanita

The side and rear liners in the fire box of my stanley wood burner burned out years ago and were replaced with firebrick. This was quite a while ago and the brick has held up well. As I recollect I fastened the half thickness firebricks to 1/4" steel backing plates with 1/4" socket head cap screws countersunk into the firebrick. This sounds complicated but in practice it was easy to figure out and the end product worked well. I cut the brick to size with a masonry blade in a skil saw. I did not try to duplicate the holes in the left side.

This stove lost its air tight property years ago but I still like it because it heats up rapidly when I want coffee early in the morning.
As I recollect I got it in 1978.

Douglas

I'm in the process of completely rebuilding a small wood fired cook stove that was at its end of life when I got it for nothing. This thread interested me because the cast iron fire box parts are mostly either gone or junk. While the outside porcelain pieces are in good shape, the interior sheet metal parts are burned through. After I 'tin knock' those out of 16 or 18 gauge (which is what it was), I plan to use castable refractory cement to line the firebox. This is used in kilns where temps reach 2600 degrees so I can't see how it would not be suitable for this use. Also, it negates the seams that have to be filled when using fire brick. Rutland among others makes it.


http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=EFIsTpOxLsOEtgeTqKTXAg&ved=0CEAQ8wIwAA

Yep, taking pictures as I go, but I'll eliminate the ones with the bloody fingers from working with the sheet metal. ha ha ha. Sure wish I had a buddy with a brake. But then it wouldn't be fun!

Easy (here) to imagine that they've made provision for secondary air in some fashion, which helps greatly for complete combustion. Otherwise, they'd have great difficulty meeting emissions limits with thermal efficiency worth more than spit.

Still can't understand why any stove mfg would bother with any sort of metal liner. Almost transparent to IR, so it doesn't help to keep firebox temps up, and much more readily burnt through than firebrick. (Hot firebox -> complete combustion.)

Before you sink lots of time/effort/$ into restoring this stove, you might look into a current "EPA" stove. One that comes with a refractory liner, like firebrick. If you do decide to restore it, I'd suggest you request guidance from mfg or someone who understands how the stove functions, or should. No offense, but it sounds like you're kind of "at sea" there. Maybe someone local can advise.