I don't mean to beat the dead horse, but I am really against this sort of thinking for the airplane pilot. Here's why:

1. You don't know the magnitude or direction of the headwinds or tailwinds in most cases unless you have a wind vector on board. You are guessing about all this at a time when there are far better things to be doing given your engine just quit. And if you do happen to have a wind vector on the cockpit panel, now you have to watch the thing as you turn the airplane in the wind which is a heads-down activity you could really do without.

2. As discussed, not flying the Vg speed robs you of precious time that you could be using to address the dead-stick situation.

3. Why do you need more distance over the ground anyway? The chances of not being near a suitable landing site concurrent with being in headwind or tailwind conditions where you happen to know what those winds are and where they are coming from is unlikely. Furthermore, these winds may change as you descend, and in fact are likely to do so. Why not just use Vg, the speed at which you have the most time and as far as you know, distance to land?

4. This speed we are talking about is not technically a best glide speed. It is a ground-based best distance speed under known wind conditions, a "speed to fly" as the glider crowd puts it. I do not ding them for using something that works for their purposes, but I point out they are not very commonly our purposes as airplane pilots. The whole discussion is perhaps an interesting engineering topic, but it is confusing a more valuable issue- that of using the best glide speed as defined universally by aircraft engineering texts and pilot training manuals for use in emergencies.

I rest my case, Your Honor.