Rhonemas said:
That's a fantastic price for the Clydesdale! And the Osburn as well!
Electronics are definetely where I fall short, my Clydesdale came with a thing the chord plugs into that has a knob on it I can rotate to give me variable fan speed I want, I think it's called a rheostat and don't have a low, med, high. I could've probably gotten that device at radioshack, it says Honeywell on it. I can tell you know far more than I about it. The latch on the Clydesdale doesn't have a clamp, I know what you mean you'd feel it would be more than it is but it seals tighter than a clamshell everytime. I've closed the door dozens of times on ashes, black burnt wood pieces, bark that's fallen off, it seals tight everytime crap in the way or not and I never have uncontrolled burns. The door handle & latch does seem very simple and basic.
Although the Osburn has a higher BTU, go by firebox size. Soapstone & cast iron don't have as max btu's as steel, rather have a higher sustained btu's over time vs. steel. Both being nearly the same firebox size they should both put similar amounts of heat into the living area over the entire burn. I think unless your house is well insulated that's a lot of area (2000 sq ft + basement) and you will be burning and feeding the insert constantly and keeping it at a high setting. They are space heaters, but everyone tries to use them to heat their house. Tough choice, she likes the look of the Osburn better, and I believe the Clydesdale will hold up better burning 24/7 because, that's really how the Clydesdale is meant to be used and works best... definetely not the right choice for occasional lighting. I also find it interesting Warren says there's a lot of radiant heat coming out the front of his. The Clydesdale doesn't have much at all, a table 4 feet in front of my glass gets hardly warm to the touch. I wonder why the two are so different, is it the soapstone & cast iron playing it's part vs. the steel & firebrick? Like Warren says, the Osburn is designed to throw out the heat as fast as possible (generally steel and firebrick units are that way) and a wiser choice to heat a place quickly, and probably a better choice for stop & go fires. Whereas, the Clydesdale is more for the long haul and burning 24/7. So, they both have their benefits. I think on those really cold days, neither will be able to keep up unless your house is really insulated.
Just to clarify a little here. Yes, the radiant heat can be extremely intense from my 1800. With even a medium sort of fire going, I can't sit on the hearth next to the stove for long, I just feel way too hot. Nice after coming in from the cold though. My house is about 2200 sqft, and I would have purchased either the Osburn 2200 or the Lopi Revere, but I couldn't get the Lopi, and the Osburn wouldn't fit, sooo...1800 it was. That said the only days my stove lost ground was when the temp dropped below 10 degrees. Otherwise it's heating my whole house. Yes it's 78+ in the livingroom, and 70 in the kitchen, and 68 upstairs...so temp variations are there, but that's not bad considering that it's still 70 in the dining room (house is livingroom, diningroom, kitchen basically in a row) when I wake up in the morning.
All that said, Yes a lot of radiant heat, but also a lot of hot air. When the blower is on, the stove moves heat considerably better, and being in front of the stove gets even hotter. Very little of the heat comes off the top. The material above the stove is much cooler with the stove installed compared to the original Majestic fireplace that the stove sits in.
Still, if your trying to get the stove from stone cold to producing heat, my Osburn will take a good hour to get up to operating temp. From coals in the morning, 10 minutes, but in reality, it's still producing significant amounts of heat with a bed of coals . Actually, about 70% of the time, I find the blower still running when I get up in the morning, and when I open the stove door, and start fiddling with the stove, the blower will turn off.
I don't feel like you'd be going wrong with that 2200, and I'm sure you'd like it. I have some stove experience to compare to, an old Jotul 602 ripoff called a Reginald, and that was no where near the heater this Osburn is. Then a couple coal stoves, and they were nice since they produced long consistant heat that kept things real even, but coal can be hard or easy depending on conditions as the Harmon thread is indicating.
Overall, the Osburn (and I'm sure similar designed inserts like Lopi, Napoleon etc...) are very straight forward to use. My wife generally hates dealing with things like this. She'd prefer just turning a dial to get heat, but she has quickly fallen in love with the stove. She likes the view, the intense heat it produces, the nice fire running all the time, and doesn't even mind tossing a few logs into it every two hours or so during the day. Now, my wife is at home with kids, so she can tend to the stove. If you aren't home during the day and would like the stove to have heated the house so when you get home from work...I think the Soapstone stoves would be the way to go...Longer standing heat.