TFF
Well-Known Member
A drive on a 1200 would make a huge difference over straight drive. Today a 1835 is just as easy to build and just as cheap. It would get rid of the extra step of building a drive.
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
Take a second look. Looks to me like a 1200cc alright - but a 36 Hp. Side fuel pump and cut off gen tower.
That's what I would do, esp as the Headwind is known to fly well using a smaller direct drive VW. Simple, known to work, relatively cheap: an aviation trifecta.
Kyle, I worked with Don back in the 90s helping clean up his drawings to what you get today. Don would probably recommend the use of a VW with the Maximizer. He has stopped advertising now but when he did he always used a picture of the Geide Headwind which had a Maximizer as he felt it best represented the Headwind.
Don is a class act guy. I managed to pull some strings and got him a tour at LM when the F22 line was running. He later sent me copies of the Headwind, Maximizer and his Foo Fighter.
So are you really building a Headwind??
Don is a class act guy. I managed to pull some strings and got him a tour at LM when the F22 line was running. He later sent me copies of the Headwind, Maximizer and his Foo Fighter.
So are you really building a Headwind??
Not right now. I have a 99% finished RV-10 in the garage that I need to push over the finish line.
After that is finished and flying (or even once it goes to the airport), I'll be looking for a "next" project. I enjoy having something to work on here at the house. The candidates include restarting a Hatz project I began many years ago, maybe building something truly low and slow like a Headwind, Fly Baby, or Currie Wot, or restoring an Aeronca. Of the three "really low and slow" homebuilts, the Wot "feels" like the most work and the least practical given I don't have a 1500' square grass field to operate from. The Headwind is probably the easiest to build and is certainly unique.
Last edited:
Haven't read that! If you want to get inspired to fly a Wot, read "Airymouse" by Harald Penrose.
I have a copy of that one. It didn't do a lot for me. It is still sitting on my nightstand. Maybe I'll have another go at it as they would say in Blighty.Haven't read that! If you want to get inspired to fly a Wot, read "Airymouse" by Harald Penrose.
I think you are right. Looking at the generator stand I couldn't tell what it was and I didn't catch the other picture of the side mount fuel pump. No question , it's a 36 hp engine.
Unique is fun. It’s very cool to have an airplane that most pilots have never seen.
The part I like about the maximizer is it maximizes the surface area for the prop to seat against. If you ever taken a wooden prop off a plane and noticed the wood looks black or burnt where it touches the mounting flange.......that's not good.
so a follow on quastion Pops: could the direct drive withthe 1200 cam turn a 62" diameter 24-26" 2 blade prop at 2450-2500 rpm on a plane like your SSSC? If you think so, what do you believe would the fuel burn be at that setting? and, would you then plan to cruise at 2300 or keep it at the max power rpm?
1200 cam ? Stock cams on the 1200 cc, 40hp,-- 1300 cc, 50Hp--- 1600cc, 60 HP are all the same. Different cam gear on the same came after 1971, I believe. Stock cam is hard to beat for low RPM torque.
Going from a 60" dia to a 62" dia x 26" pitch is a bit much for the 1835cc engine. I wouldn't go more than the 24", maybe a 22" if you wasn't concerned much about the speed. Could try the 62" dia x 26" and if it was to much load on the engine , you would be able to reduce the dia a littl at a time to suit.
I have cruised my 1835 cc engine at 2500 rpm with a cruise speed of about 65 mph, but couldn't get the oil temp up over about 160 F . Doing that on a cross country flight trying to say back with 2 Piets with A-65's. Summer day.
Fuel burn would be about 2.5 gph. Just a guess.
Going from a 60" dia to a 62" dia x 26" pitch is a bit much for the 1835cc engine. I wouldn't go more than the 24", maybe a 22" if you wasn't concerned much about the speed. Could try the 62" dia x 26" and if it was to much load on the engine , you would be able to reduce the dia a littl at a time to suit.
I have cruised my 1835 cc engine at 2500 rpm with a cruise speed of about 65 mph, but couldn't get the oil temp up over about 160 F . Doing that on a cross country flight trying to say back with 2 Piets with A-65's. Summer day.
Fuel burn would be about 2.5 gph. Just a guess.
This is a year old thread, but I must say that (with the O-100 being unlikely) the Headwind might have an entire resurgence with Chip Erwin's Aeromarine V-twin engine now being brought to market. It seems like it would be a spot-on match for this type of airplane. Chip apparently has reasonable credibility and experience, and the engine is based on a high production industrial/powersports base engine, and it is flying now.
Ride in on a white horse and save the day.... 
challenger_II
Well-Known Member
DD 1835 is hard to beat. My Longster, which is a very close comparison to a Headwind (EW, wing area, useful load) does very well with my Low Aspect Ratio (read: oversize) self, in hot West Texas.
Attachments
If that's your airplane in the photo, we need to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk about those wheels...
