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.
Take a second look. Looks to me like a 1200cc alright - but a 36 Hp. Side fuel pump and cut off gen tower.That is a 1200 cc, 40 HP
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.Go with a direct drive VW. If you use a reduction drive its going to cost you a lot of added weight with the needed starter with a electrical system ,battery, etc.
VW don't have to spin 3000 rpm. My 1835 cc, VW engine in the high drag SSSC cruises at 80 mph at 2650/2700 rpm with a 60"x26" Culver prop burning 2.9/3.0 gph, with a 1200'+ ROC. Non-electric, 141 lb firewall forward weight.
So are you really building a Headwind??
Haven't read that! If you want to get inspired to fly a Wot, read "Airymouse" by Harald Penrose.When you think you want to build a Wot read "Birds and Fools Fly" by Urmston.
Haven't read that! If you want to get inspired to fly a Wot, read "Airymouse" by Harald Penrose.![]()
Here's the Maximizer from Don's plans: I wouldn't fly without it but I'd just make my own because the original cast pieces are not readily available. View attachment 103403
Unique is fun. It’s very cool to have an airplane that most pilots have never seen.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.
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?Go with a direct drive VW. If you use a reduction drive its going to cost you a lot of added weight with the needed starter with a electrical system ,battery, etc.
VW don't have to spin 3000 rpm. My 1835 cc, VW engine in the high drag SSSC cruises at 80 mph at 2650/2700 rpm with a 60"x26" Culver prop burning 2.9/3.0 gph, with a 1200'+ ROC. Non-electric, 141 lb firewall forward weight.
The Headwind is NOT a low drag , fast , VW powed airplane that would need a small 54" dia prop turning at a high RPM .
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.
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.
If that's your airplane in the photo, we need to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk about those wheels...
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: