• working on DNS.. links may break temporarily.

Patio Smoker

D

Drake

Full Fledged Farker
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
239
Reaction score
134
Points
0
Location
South FL
Hello All. I am getting a new smoker shortly. Im looking at the 48'' patio with a warmer. My question to the Brethren is, would this be too much of a smoker for a single rack of ribs or two. Most of my cooks are small cooks for the wife and myself. The young-un doesnt eat too much right now. I have these great visions of a brisket and pork butt and ribs all at the same time but dont know if it will happen that way. How much more fuel does a 48" smoker use over a 36" smoker? Right now Im cooking on a large egg and size has yet to be a problem. I have never cooked on a stick burner. But I really like the look of the 48". :doh:
 
Do you have the occasional need for a smoker that large with a warmer?
 
If you've got the space and the funds, I say go bigger. The difference in fuel between a 36" and 48" is not going to be huge with an efficient smoker. It sounds like you are looking at the Lang. You can always load less meat, but more is not an option.
 
peeps said:
Do you have the occasional need for a smoker that large with a warmer?
Click to expand...

Not really.


sliding_billy said:
If you've got the space and the funds, I say go bigger. The difference in fuel between a 36" and 48" is not going to be huge with an efficient smoker. It sounds like you are looking at the Lang. You can always load less meat, but more is not an option.
Click to expand...

Im going to have TuscaloosaQ build it. Im sure I have driven him crazy by now with all the questions and indecisiveness, But he has been great and a pleasure to work with.
 
Drake said:
Not really.




Im going to have TuscaloosaQ build it. Im sure I have driven him crazy by now with all the questions and indecisiveness, But he has been great and a pleasure to work with.
Click to expand...

Once you get that 48" you can come up with occasions to cook more. Plus, there is always frozen (and refrigerated for quicker eating) leftovers. Obviously, whatever TQ makes is going to be efficient as heck. Here is a link to my recent build. The photos have been moved in the original thread, so here is an image as well. The one thing I did as a contingency for smaller cooks was install a damper between the main chamber and the warmer box with separate exhausts. That way I could shut down the warmer box and move the exhaust to the one connected directly to the main chamber. Feel free to hit me up on PM for any more info on this build.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=172861

 
I did a single rack of spares in Earl over the weekend. I think I used 6 splits (had one going with a fair bit of life left when I pulled them) or so on a bed of charcoal. Yours is gonna be a bit more steel to heat up, so it make take a bit more. If that is a fuel usage that you can live with, go for it!
 
I have done a 14lb packer and an 8lb butt on my 36 patio with plenty of room to spare.
 
Hmmm... how do I say this: I have the Lang 48 and I have NEVER wished I had gone with a smaller smoker. But, I have often wished I had a larger one. It is true that you can cram a lot of meat on a smaller smoker. What I miss is the space when I want to cook in pans. My family likes smoked wings and smoked bacon-wrapped chicken breasts. I like to cook those in the big disposable aluminum chafing pans - and you just can't fit too many in there.
 
When I got my pit from Paul Shirley, I was set aback at how big it was. I had originally been thinking about a 48" or smaller. I think it ended up being about 54". I also did the warming cabinet, which can hold a lot of food.

Since I've had it home, I can't imagine having anything else. I do a lot more big cooks than I ever expected. You wouldn't believe how extra food finds a happy home somewhere.

It is so much fun cooking on a big offset. I say get the 48", and you'll never regret it!
 
To your original question, naw it is not to big. Mine is about 72" and I'll fire it up fo a rack or two or other smaller cooks. I have found though that once I decide to fire it up for a couple racks of ribs, I'll usually go ahead and cook a few meals (i.e., add a couple chckens). You will absolutely love Paul's 48", workmanship and customer service is outstanding.
 
I also say go for the 48". You won't be disappointed in the quality from Paul and Ty.
But the difference in a 36" - 48" in fuel usage is minimal.

I guess the ole saying "go BIG or go home" kinda really fit's pits in my opinion.
 
+1 on TQ's customer service. He called me just the other day to see how the cooker is working out and to check in on my family. Once you buy from those Shirley folks, they treat you like family.
 
Im looking forward to my TQ build pics.....Delivery to be ~ Jan 1.

Very smooth transaction thus far !!

I was in a Father Son business for almost 2O years, I admire that about them.
 
I have been drooling over this one ever since the drawing this week. I would ask Paul if they can add a way to block off the horizontal cooking chamber and a way to open up the warmer a little more. Then when you have a small load you could just heat up the vertical. Just an idea and I am not sure if this is the model you are referring to or not. My thought was with this smoker you would have a horizontal stick burner and a vertical. To me it doesn't get any better and you save the space of having 2 separate smokers. I never really liked the warmer being on the other end. If all goes well I will be getting one of these next spring.
 
Last edited:
Drake said:
Hello All. I am getting a new smoker shortly. Im looking at the 48'' patio with a warmer. My question to the Brethren is, would this be too much of a smoker for a single rack of ribs or two. Most of my cooks are small cooks for the wife and myself. The young-un doesnt eat too much right now. I have these great visions of a brisket and pork butt and ribs all at the same time but dont know if it will happen that way. How much more fuel does a 48" smoker use over a 36" smoker? Right now Im cooking on a large egg and size has yet to be a problem. I have never cooked on a stick burner. But I really like the look of the 48". :doh:
Click to expand...

I cant speak for a 48. But I owned a 250 gallon smoker from Paul. It took 30 min to get up to temp and I used about 2 sticks of wood an hour to keep it fueled. The RF design is easy to cook on. My smoker had constant temps through out the whole chamber. Not any hot spots that you had to worry about.
As far as the warmer, I would get it. Its great to cook sausage and sides in.
 
sliding_billy:
Thats a very nice pit you've got. TuscaloosaQ does have the separate exhausts on the cook chamber and the warmer.

cholloway:
TuscaloosaQ can pretty much make the smoker the customer wants. He can size it to whatever the need is. He is very accommodating and easy to work with.

pjtexas1:
TuscaloosaQ puts a baffle from the main cook chamber to the vertical warmer. That way you get live some in the warmer. He can also put in a vent in the bottom of the warmer to add more heat from the firebox to the warmer if desired. He also has a charcoal basket in the warmer if you want to use only the warmer without firing up the main chamber. You can grill in it over the charcoal or use it as a separate smoker.
 
Thank you to everyone who answered. I am really leaning towards the 48" smoker with the warmer. Deciding on which builder was the easy part, picking the cooker is the hard part. I think I did that backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Water Smokers?
Replies
4
Views
410
SmoothBoarBBQ
SmoothBoarBBQ
T
Buying a new smoker/grill. Which one?
Replies
1
Views
630
bschoen
B
J
Electric smoker dying
Replies
16
Views
611
JIMSMOKES
J
W
Noob-ish Stick Burner Question
Replies
10
Views
719
Seefyre
Seefyre
C
Costco - FlamePro pellet patio heater
Replies
10
Views
2K
Mark
Mark
Back
Top