Leisure Line Vs Alaska Stoker...Any Advise?

Hello All,

I found this forum by complete accident! I didn't realize stoker coal stoves would merit such a site, but I'm glad it's here. Anyway, I would like a little help from anyone and all who know more about this subject than I!

Back about 14-15 years ago I owned an Alaska Stoker Stove that I believe to be a Channing 2. It had a hot air jacket that had (2) 100 CFM blowers. It had a 90lb hopper and was controlled by a lobe nut for adjusting the "carpet" feed. I had a plenum built and a neat forced hot air system that was custom designed for that stove. (The house was electric, no oil). I ended up selling the house 10 years ago and leaving the stoker behind (dumb thing I know ).

Fast foreward today....I'm once again interested in a coal stoker stove. I won't have a chimney available for it because the oil furnace is there and I won't take it out of service for the hot water (yet anyway).

I want to put the unit in my basement and build a duct work system similar to what I had in the old house. I would need a hot air jacket and a plenum etc. Anyway, I want to know if anyone can tell me if the Leisure Line is as good or better than the Alaska for the same type of use I want to do?

I understand that the folks from Leisure Line may have been afiliated with Alaska at some point and that's ok with me. I was wondering if anyone knows what or if the differences in the two "furnace" lines that would be better over the other? The carpet of Alaska or the shovel of the Leisure Line? How about the differences in hot air jackets? Does Alaska still offer that option? I had a "Zero Ratious" bend in my old plenum which ment that the heat would flow thru the plenum and into the main trunk without any hard angles or 90 deg bends so that would be more effiecient (well at least that was the thought process). I was wondering if the hot air jacket on the Leisure Line was found to have issues because from the pictures I could find on the internet showed a stove pipe type connection right off the top of their jacket. Also, the Leisure Line jacket didn't seem to go all the way to the bottom of the stoker? Any thoughts on this?

I ask about this because the Alaska I had used for 5 seasons worked great. Now I want to buy a new Stoker and the people I bought the original from don't offer alaska anymore, they have the Leisure Line. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Also, if anyone can post or email pictures of the Leisure Line hot air jacket installed on a system (theirs prefably) and if anyone can do the same with the Alaska Stoker and jacket system, this would be great. I don't have any old pictures of my setup and I can't find any on the internet

My email: [email protected]

Thanks again for any help!!!

Normy

They are both great stoves. I believe Alaska uses thicker steel but the LL has many bells and whistles and is more advanced.

I was wondering if the hot air jacket on the Leisure Line was found to have issues because from the pictures I could find on the internet showed a stove pipe type connection right off the top of their jacket. Also, the Leisure Line jacket didn't seem to go all the way to the bottom of the stoker? Any thoughts on this?

I believe by it not going all the way to the floor it allows for greater air flow to be sucked in between the stove and the heat jacket and out into the connected duck system. Also I believe it would allow for some heat to go into the room that the stove is located in, which since you have to be in there to maintain the stove it'll be more comfortable for the operator.

probably for convection also, if the blower isn't on, the sides can still get kinda hot, and with it being open, it can pull the cooler air from the the floor.

Thanks for the replys!

So the jacket might be a better design giving that it doesn't go to the floor and the blowers aren't in the way? That may make sense.

What would your thoughts be that the jacket transition would be a round vent pipe and not a gradual plenum narrowing into a main vent trunk? Or is that a removable item just screwed to the hot air jacket?

A point was brought up about material thickness for the fire box, does anyone know if there is a reason why one would be better than the other in terms of operations?

Does anyone have experience with both types of coal feed mechanisms? Is one better over the other? Does one burn the coal more efficiently / effectively then the other brand?

If anyone could post pics or email them with there own personal setup (with jackets installed) both brands....please!!!

Thanks again for all your help!

Normy

Hi Again,

My bad!!! I just found out that I had a Stoker 2 not a channing 2, because of the hot air jacket that we added. I found out that the model 140 is the comparable to what I had, and the 140 has a built in jacket. Anyway, any thoughts on comparing the LL to the 140?

Sorry for the wrong info!

Normy