I am going to buy one or the other, but there is not a lot written on the F3500. The CAT warranty is better on the F3500, and they are about the same price. I'm looking for the longer burn times. I cannot figure out the size of the ash pan on the F3500. There is a lot written on the BK, so I have that info. All things being equal, we like the look of the BK better, and will go with it. Can someone convince me to to buy the F3500? I live in northern Ontario. Usually 2-3 weeks of -40. Thanks!
Regency F3500 VS BK Chinook 30.2
- Thread starter Pbhead
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
The bk will give you longer burn times. The regency will give you more BTUs. The cat warranty doesn't really matter. They will replace the first one for you then the rest are on you.
The burn time is going to be relative to the heat loss of the house. If the stove is being pushed for heat, the burn times may be equal or even shift to favor the hybrid. The F3500 may also provide a better light show and cleaner glass on low burn. Conversely, in milder weather the BK will burn lower and slower and afford a thermostatic operation.
Luckily, both of these stoves were tested with cordwood so the EPA numbers are comparable.
The F3500 is rated for 11000 -36000 btu output range and is 3 CF.
The princess is rated for 10,000-31000 btu output range and is just under 3 CF.
The F3500 spews more than double the pollution but that doesn't really matter to most.
Equally efficient stoves and the burn time has nothing to do with the house but rather, how fast you choose to burn the fuel which may or may not be affected by the needs of the house. Sometimes the need for long burn time will be more important than not letting the furnace kick in occasionally. The BK has a 30 hour burn time rating and it is easy to beat. Not sure about real life users of the F3500. Anybody?
What the BK gets you is a thermostat. It is wonderful and all else being equal (not a bad assessment here), that thermostat is enough of a reason to go with the BK.
The F3500 is rated for 11000 -36000 btu output range and is 3 CF.
The princess is rated for 10,000-31000 btu output range and is just under 3 CF.
The F3500 spews more than double the pollution but that doesn't really matter to most.
Equally efficient stoves and the burn time has nothing to do with the house but rather, how fast you choose to burn the fuel which may or may not be affected by the needs of the house. Sometimes the need for long burn time will be more important than not letting the furnace kick in occasionally. The BK has a 30 hour burn time rating and it is easy to beat. Not sure about real life users of the F3500. Anybody?
What the BK gets you is a thermostat. It is wonderful and all else being equal (not a bad assessment here), that thermostat is enough of a reason to go with the BK.
.9 gms/hr is not twice .8gms/hr
And I am sorry but the burn times people will get from their stoves when trying to heat their house has absolutely everything to do with the house and outside temps. I agree possible burn times aren't effected by that but in the real world what matters is burn time while heating the house
You're right, I was looking at princess with the 0.4 gph.
I should also amend my thoughts above to say that the chinook output range is 11.5-27k btus.
Oddly, the F3500 is listed as a cat stove and NOT a hybrid. It actually has pretty good specs.
How is real world burn time?
![[Hearth.com] Regency F3500 VS BK Chinook 30.2](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/281/281258-acaad49ef9bb914fd7d1a3a7513504d6.jpg?hash=iywbYNpXza "[Hearth.com] Regency F3500 VS BK Chinook 30.2")
![[Hearth.com] Regency F3500 VS BK Chinook 30.2](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/281/281259-ec0c875832b283c9b88b1995a46451fe.jpg?hash=22pER1SNqa "[Hearth.com] Regency F3500 VS BK Chinook 30.2")
Meh, I'll agree to disagree. I understand your theory but this stove is a tool and can be set at whatever burn rate you want. The operator can CHOOSE to burn the stove at whatever burn rate he wants within the tool's range of abilities. He might choose to match the home's heat loss or he might not. Some operators have furnaces, some are trying to heat up cold houses, some just really want that overnight fire for ease of reloading even if that means the house cools down overnight.
These stoves are not smart enough to maintain the house temp. The operator must set the burn rate which means he or she CHOOSES the burn time. Not the stove.
Yes a stove is a tool used to heat a house. So the burn time only matters if it is doing it's intended job.
Also the numbers are not nearly as similar as you stated. The regency has a 10000 btu advantage over the Chinook with the partial load in the EPA tests and that gap will widen when the stoves are full. The regency also has a 5% efficiency advantage and only .1 gm/hr emissions disadvantage
The job of a stove is not always to maintain a specific set temperature in the home. Sometimes there are other priorities and in any case, the stove just does what the user tells it to do.
The F3500 is a pretty dang good stove per the specs when compared to the 30 box. That's why this thread is a good comparison.
The Regency website calls this a hybrid but EPA says just a cat stove. I assume it's still a hybrid? That should mean it is better able to run clean and efficient at higher output rates that are statistically seldom used but still a nice feature.
Then the cat warranty is 10 years for the F3500. Isn't that the same as BK? I agree it's pretty irrelevant since cats only last 10-12000 hours which is only a few years for those of us that burn full time.
If you kind of squint a little, the F3500 looks just like a princess but without a thermostat.
Yes they are similar stoves. But the regency is a nice clean design with proper proportions. The princess not so much. But we aren't talking about a princess here.
And yes the 3500 is a hybrid.
And honestly the statistic that most stoves are run low is very misleading when applied to stoves like blaze kings where the turndown is so low. I would say yes most stoves are run on low but most stoves low is many many times higher than a bk run on low. In my house my old regency was always run on low. The princess only is a couple days out of the year.
He is referring to the EPA testing. Which is a standardized test procedure. If you go by manufacturers testing the regency is about double the chinooks btu outputno, the Chinook (30.2) goes up to 36k btus.
chinook-30 – Blaze King
www.blazeking.com
ok. But the mfg says Regency "max btu output 75k".
If I go mfg, then BK says "max btu output 50k" - as a separate entry from "high" (vs "low").
While the EPA may be more standardized, I do have questions about a 27k EPA rating when BK notes a 36k AND a 50k...(high and "max").
In any case, it seems that the Regency can provide more BTUs when needed, (but you'd have to "do" more - light loads, short fires - in shoulder seasons) as compared to the BK.
The question then is (see debate Highbeam and bholler), whether you want to fully heat (always), in which case your home insulation is a factor for how many BTUs you need, or whether you want to heat mostly with wood and have a back-up that will help during the infrequent "coldest" periods when wood BTUs might not carry all the heat loss from your home.
The question then is (see debate Highbeam and bholler), whether you want to fully heat (always), in which case your home insulation is a factor for how many BTUs you need, or whether you want to heat mostly with wood and have a back-up that will help during the infrequent "coldest" periods when wood BTUs might not carry all the heat loss from your home.
The EPA tests are not done with a full load of wood. The stoves are filled to a preset density based upon firebox volume
I'm not sure that the latter is quantitatively correct as I see that Regency mentions "max BTU 75k". And while that IS double "BK high" (at 36k), it is NOT double "BK MAX" (at 50k).
Hence: what is the difference between "high" and "max".
If "MAX" is the same method for both mfgs (i.e. one can compare 50k and 75k), then the Regency is capable of providing 150% the heat of a BK - per hour!
But, that entails a decreased burn time as their fireboxes are more or less the same size; the same load of wood can be burned 1.5 times faster in the Regency as in the BK, leading to a burn time of only 66% of that of the BK - when burning in the to me elusive "max" mode.
Correct. We all love our manufacturers but due to past mistakes by some and marketing fluff, the EPA list is the only resource of value.
Yes I missed BK's max spec. You are correct there. But you are also missing the difference between hybrid and pure cat stoves. The regency already has an efficency advantage and that difference will be much more when burning at higher outputs because of the air tubes in the regency.
Yes good for comparison purposes but not a real world number at all. And that procedure will also favor the straight cat over the hybrid a bit. Again I don't have the data to say how much but it will certainly make a difference
You are chasing your tail. Ignore the marketing "max" btu since it is not a regulated or comparable term amongst manufacturers. Is it max output for 30 seconds, for an hour, or for 10 hours? This is one of the reasons that the EPA conducts the standardized test.
These stoves are very similar in size. If both are sitting at the same 800 degree redline temperature then I have a hard time understanding how they aren't making very similar outputs.
Just checked on catalyst prices and the f3500 is a 300$ cat (ceramic), the princess/30.2 is 210$ (ceramic). This is from midwest hearth on amazon and the interesting change is that the princess cat now "also fits" the 30.2 which orginally shipped with a steel cat. Nice to know that the seller acknowledges the compatibility since many folks were having cloggage issues with the steel cats.
I've bought 4 or 5 cats over 10 years since I burn over 5,000 hours per year. Many folks will burn less so the cat costs won't add up to much but it's something to be aware of. Also, the hybrid design of the 3500 might possibly mean that the cats have an easier life. Not sure.
Hybrid can do either depending upon the design. The secondary air can actually increase flame impingement on the cat reducing lifespan. But regency seems to have done a good job avoiding that.
So to pbhead. Both stoves are good stoves. The bk will be better at low and slow and will give you more even heat through the burn because of the thermostat. The regency gives you more potential btu output and a slight advantage in efficiency.
Cat warranty doesn't matter. And honestly most of our customers don't use the ashpans regardless. I know I don't either. So that generally isn't a factor between the two stoves either.
Cat warranty doesn't matter. And honestly most of our customers don't use the ashpans regardless. I know I don't either. So that generally isn't a factor between the two stoves either.
Similar threads
