Does anybody have any input on the best direction to go for putting extended baggage in a 67 C-182? I have researched the Selkirk kits and they have a good reputation but the kit isn't cheap. I know there are many extended baggages that have been approved with a field approval on the C-180's but I haven't heard of one on a 182. Has anybody been able to get a field approval on this for the skylane?

With a wife and two little kids I need more space to take everybody camping but can't afford a 185.

Just get the Selkirk. Think it is kit # 4.

Tim

Ditto on the Selkirk. It takes a bit of trimming to get them to fit well, but they are well built. I suspect you're going to have a difficult time getting a field approval on an extended baggage.

MTV

I went for the lower profile(Selkirk) one in my 180. I'm guesin they offer the same choices for the 182. Had to move the battery to the firewall which I thought offered several advantages. The lower profile one gives me the option to be able to sleep comfortably in the plane.
Gary

I already have a nose heavy 182 due to the O-470-50 and 3 blade prop so I want to keep the battery where its at. I have changed the battery over to the light weight version but I left it in the back. The lightweight batter still turns over equal to or better than the Gil-35 while being in the original location. I don't see a low floor kit for the 182 of my vintage.

shortfielder wrote:I went for the lower profile(Selkirk) one in my 180. I'm guesin they offer the same choices for the 182. Had to move the battery to the firewall which I thought offered several advantages. The lower profile one gives me the option to be able to sleep comfortably in the plane.
Gary

This is not an option on the wide body 182. It is only avilable for the 56 to 61 182, 180's and 185's.

And after a few margs, Garry can sleep comfy anywhere.

Tim

66skylane wrote:Does anybody have any input on the best direction to go for putting extended baggage in a 67 C-182? I have researched the Selkirk kits and they have a good reputation but the kit isn't cheap. I know there are many extended baggages that have been approved with a field approval on the C-180's but I haven't heard of one on a 182. Has anybody been able to get a field approval on this for the skylane?

With a wife and two little kids I need more space to take everybody camping but can't afford a 185.

I put the Selkirk in my 67 182. Took a buddy and me a couple hours. Most of that is trimming to fit with a file. It leaves you with the metal exposed where the rear bulkhead used to be. I went to a local upholstery shop and had a piece of vinyl made. Then I grabbed a Skylane logo off the internet and had them sew it on there. I installed about a dozen snaps and I was done. It's a ridiculous price for what you get but you don't have any other choice.

So it sounds like everybody who has experience with the Selkirk kit has been pleased with the product. I appreciate all the posts and PM's from people and it will definately help me make a decision. I haven't heard anybody reply with info on getting a field approval on an extended baggage so maybe it hasn't been done on a 182 of my vintage. I know getting a FA is sometimes difficult but we have a FSDO on the field which can be pretty cooperative if you go though the "right" channels. If I had a copy of a FA from somebody else on a 182 of my vintage I would have at least a slim chance of getting it approved. If anybody knows of one please let me know. If not I might have to bite the bullet and poney up the $$$ for the Selkirk.

The FAA usuall does not want to do a field approval for somthing that can already be done with an stc'd product. It can however be done. My advice would be to spend all that time required to get the field approval flipping burgers at McD's and take the paycheck and just buy the danged thing. Probably be money ahead.

Tim

I'm just starting the process of obtaining a field approval for an extended baggage installation in my '56 182. I have paperwork for several such installations in 180's and 185's and am optimistic it'll work for my airplane. I'm estimating the cost of materials at <$400 and will do the the installation under supervision. I'd be glad to share the paperwork and anything else I learn through the process.

Couldn't you just make a floor/tray (make it friction fit) and just lay it in there? Attach a cargo net in front of it to malke sure things stayed in the desired area.?????

Tim is correct. In fact, the FAA has specific guidance that they are not supposed to field approve anything that is already stc'd. It happens, but not often.

MTV

shortfielder wrote:Couldn't you just make a floor/tray (make it friction fit) and just lay it in there? Attach a cargo net in front of it to malke sure things stayed in the desired area.?????

The other stuff you get in the Selkirk kit is some brackets that you attach to stringers that keep the floor above the elevator and rudder cables and pulleys.

shortfielder wrote:
Couldn't you just make a floor/tray (make it friction fit) and just lay it in there? Attach a cargo net in front of it to malke sure things stayed in the desired area.?????

The other stuff you get in the Selkirk kit is some brackets that you attach to stringers that keep the floor above the elevator and rudder cables and pulleys.

Probly not a good idea of even suggesting something like this. I was just curious So,humor me The idea of trying to get something done without going through the proper channels, could lead to something disasterous,and no one wants that.

But isn't the big thing whether or not you are attaching something to the plane permanently. If you threw a piece of aluminum or fiberglass in the back of the plane(baggage area), certainly nothing wrong with that. But if you put that same piece behind the baggage area with stuff on it, that would be against some rule????

Why not just throw your sleeping bag on the cables.

Tim