Mine also run dirty and smelly on kerosene, but it has never underburned. I have never tried it with any sort of gasoline.
That's very interesting to hear. As I mentioned earlier, I have two Phoebus 625 and two spare burners (a total of four burners). I cleaned three of them (and they were very clean to start off) and they all underburn when I try to obtain a very small flame. And the underburn is worse with kerosene than with Aspen 4t. I thoroughly cleaned the tanks and the burners. The metal mesh is clean, too. I cannot find an explanation. They are driving me insane. Am I missing something? Many thanks, W.S.
@Winston Smith Phoebus 625 Paraffin ( E type ) I wonder if your problem is caused by having gasoline jets rather than kerosene jets. Apparently the kerosine jets are stamped E and the gasoline jets are stamped G. Dave
My jets are definitely stamped E. Yet, I would say that the overall performance of the stoves is worse on kerosene than on aspen 4t.
You wrote: "The mesh is clean too", which mesh? This stove has a wick. If you change the fuel from salad oil to gasoline and back, this is a problem. Use unleaded car fuel only. The Phoebus 625 is a typical gasoline stove. The Bundeswehr had fears, their soldiers would poison themselves in closed rooms with lead vapours. So the decided to prescribe kerosene. No more necessary today, since unleaded fuel is available. If your jets are stamped with "E", measure the orifice! Maybe somebody has widened them, to have a good gasoline stove. Radler
Hi everyone, Perhaps I've used the wrong word (being a newbie, I haven't mastered the stovie vocabulary). By mesh I meant the metal strainer / vaporizer - or whatever it is called. The 625 doesn't have a wick. As for the orifice, I've tried three burners, they all behave the same. I doubt they all had their jets enlarged. After reading older threads, I came to the conclusion that the 625 is simply not a great choice for kerosene. Am I wrong? Many thanks W.S.
You are not wrong, so far as the use of kerosene in a Phoebus 625 is not as easy as the use of gasoline. The vaporising zone is very limited, if you compare it with a true kerosene-stove, and it is relatively far away from the flames. If this zone is not hot enough, when you start to pump, the fuel will cool it down too much. If the jet is too wide, the same thing happens: The fuel cools down the vaporising tube and liquid fuel reaches the jet instead of vapour. When you try to simmer, you can have the same effect, the vaporising zone does not get enough heath after a wile. Gasoline is vaporising much easier than kerosene. The Phoebus 625 is one of the best outdoor stove for groups or military. Alpin expeditions used it to melt snow in the highest regions of the world, but simmering small quantities is not her best virtue. I have checked my Phoebus 625: Yes, it has no wick. I had the wick of the Phoebus 725 in my mind, when I posted. The 625 has a twice bent rising tube. Radler
@Winston Smith as you can see on most of 625 like this Phoebus No.625 from the 1950s, they have an important wind shield, that basically has two meanings: 1: obviously protect from the wind 2: keep the burner hot and especially increase the efficiency of the pre heating session. You should try to pre heat and use the stove with the windshield on, I am sure it will improve the situation and probably also the simmering capabilities. Nicola
Nicola and Radler, thank you for your detailed explanations. I just ordered some gasoline jets (not original) and I shall see how it goes.
I have two old Phoebus stoves, same model, but have not used them for many years. I clearly remember underburn when trying to simmer (low heat output), more so if it was in hot weather. But in colder weather there was less potential for underburn. At higher output I did not have an underburn problem. I should dig one of them out and try it again, maybe use on my next camping trip. I have only used white gas fuel in them, never kerosene.
Hi everyone and my apologies for reviving this old thread. Just a quick update. I ordered some gasoline jets (not original) from a seller in Korea and I tried them on my two stoves. I'm very pleased with how they run on Aspen 4. No more underburn and actually excellent simmering. I could go as low as the blue flamelets are barely visible. From the underdogs of my still-small collection, the two Phoebus became my favorites.
Hello Winston I am glad you found these jets and the best solution for your Phoebus Nº625. Aspen 4 is certainly the best fuel today for this stove, which was made for "Normalbenzin" (German) 75 years ago. Twenty years ago, I have used for several years unleaded car fuel in my Phoebus Nº 625. This was done outdoors to make hot steam to melt bee wax out of honeycombs. Filled the stove and then full power until the stove was empty, which took about 1½ hours! For the stove, this was no problem at all, but of course, for cooking food, a less smelly fuel like Aspen4 is much preferable! With a Phoebus Nº 625 you can cook for a party of 10 hungry men under field conditions. Enjoy it! Best regards Radler
Thank you, Radler. The Phoebus 625 is a very balanced stove. Powerful and with a large tank, in addition to the solid construction. While definitely not small, for its size the overall performance is hard to match.
