The Mississippi

[excavman]

Somewhere on this site, I believe, someone was talking about the Mississippi and said some very discouraging words regarding efforts to sail or even small power boating out there with the big boys. A friend and power boater up in Arkansas said it takes a lot of horsepower to beat the current and make any headway going up stream. I was kinda hoping to go up from the Ohio at Cairo to Cape Girardeau this summer if at all possible. Does anyone have experiences or advice concerning this matter. I am trying to learn all I can about the art of sailing. I guess I could always trailer up if I have to but sailing would be more fun.

Larry

[tomwatt]

I may have been one of the discouraging commenters... although I dreamed of sailing the Mississippi as a boy, it is a very powerful river and is not to be trifled with. It may have been National Geographic tv channel that ran a series on boating down the "father of waters" from headwater to the Gulf... that would be a very informative viewing for you, keeping in mind that they were only running downstream.
Even the Arkansas has enough current to require you to think of about double the hp normally required to move a small sailboat, and the Arkansas flows into the Mississippi without making so much as a dent in it.
More than anything else, I'd be concerned about encountering debris that would puncture the hull. Anytime I've sat and watched the river, I've always been amazed to see whole trees sailing past at a pretty good clip. The NG presentation boaters encountered truck axles with tires attached, large tanks, trees and other things in the channel with them in the stretch of river you are thinking of traveling.

[Auspicious]

Somewhere on Bill Dietrich's interesting web site ( http://billdietrich.byethost8.com/ ) is the story of his cruise up the Mississippi and the Tom-Tom.

[Captain Smollett]

think of about double the hp normally required to move a small sailboat

Ugggh.  I may regret this, and I'm sorry in advance for bringing it up, but...

I could double the HP on my small sailboat(s) and it would not make any different in trying to buck a current.  My "little" boat, 1350 lbs (18 ft LOA) has a 6 HP on it, which is already too big and only causes stern squat.

Similarly, with my 9000 lb "big" boat, the Alberg 30 which has an 8 HP outboard that reaches hull speed at less than full throttle and likewise squats the stern above that setting.

If we are talking displacement boats (and virtually all the ones here on SailFar are), hull speed is hull speed, and no matter what the current is, we cannot exceed that speed through the water (even if the water is moving one way or another).

More than anything else, I'd be concerned about encountering debris that would puncture the hull. Anytime I've sat and watched the river, I've always been amazed to see whole trees sailing past at a pretty good clip. The NG presentation boaters encountered truck axles with tires attached, large tanks, trees and other things in the channel with them in the stretch of river you are thinking of traveling.

Wow, now there's a danger to avoid.  I would imagine this would be less of an issue going downstream, as one could 'match' speed with the obstructions better.  Right?

Hitting a tree or truck axle does not sound fun.  People pleasure boat in planing power boats on that river, though, don't they?  Are they 'skilled' in avoiding the dangers or just ignorant of them?  Do you read of a lot of debris caused boating accidents?

[tomwatt]

Capt Smollet, as far as hp goes, most people I've talked to around here are in planing motor boats, and I've yet to place a sailboat in the river, so I cannot testify, except to say that general consensus is that the current can nullify the push from a "normal" motor. I don't suspect (except for the Mac26 motor/sail boat) that anyone was expecting to go high speed, but simply go at all.
As far as river debris goes, in the program I mentioned, they expressed concerns about impacting slower-moving debris, as well as being hit from behind by debris when they anchored for the night.
The Arkansas manages to claim a few lives every year to a variety of causes. But the river (Ark) has numerous weird eddies and whirlpools that make it a difficult passage.
The volume of water passing through the Mississippi channel is enormous. Numbers running higher than a million cubic feet per second at flood stages, and averaging 200 to 700 thousand cubic feet per second during normal water flow.
I would not like to discourage anyone's ambitions, and honestly have looked at making some portion of the river journey myself. It's an attractive trip, although much of the lower Mississippi is lacking in river ports, since most were either wiped out or lost access to the river during the great flood of the 1920's that relocated the river by many miles in some places.
From what I can gather, going upriver via the Tenn-Tom and then trying (what you are suggesting) to go upriver from the Ohio is definitely the preferred way. But I'd sure be on the lookout for snags and debris.

[Captain Smollett]

Capt Smollet, as far as hp goes, most people I've talked to around here are in planing motor boats, and I've yet to place a sailboat in the river, so I cannot testify, except to say that general consensus is that the current can nullify the push from a "normal" motor. I don't suspect (except for the Mac26 motor/sail boat) that anyone was expecting to go high speed, but simply go at all.

Okay, planing hulls like many motor boats and Mac 26's are a different animal completely.

For us displacement guys, the current might nullify a normal engine with respect to speed over ground, but there is absolutely nothing we can do about that.  If my boat can go 5 knots through the water, that's it through the water no matter if the water is moving or not.

If the downstream current is 5 knots, I cannot go upstream. Doubling my horsepower will not change that.

Again...planing hulls are a different kettle of fish (or something).

This is a hull hydrodynamics thing, not a HP thing.  I doubt I could add enough HP to my Alberg (or even my little boat, for that matter) to make it plane ON the water...at least safely; the weight of the engine, and the torque it produced, would cause damage before the hull planed (at least that's my guess).

This is perhaps a good general "warning" for sailors quote listening unquote to power boaters.

[tomwatt]

OK, I don't mean to sound stupid (although it wouldn't be the first time), but looking at the curves/table produced for figuring hull speed/horsepower, etc., I thought I understood it to mean that a 6 knot hull could be accelerated beyond that speed by application of a huge increase in thrust (horsepower). Yes it would really kill fuel efficiency, etc. But it could still be done.
But I'm reading your comment to say that putting a 10 hp motor on a boat that normally moves fine with a 5 hp motor is going to damage its structure? Or am I missing the point?
I seriously don't understand the fine point here.
I do comprehend the difference between a planing hull and a displacement hull. And not all info I was gleaning was from bass-boaters (although that's mostly what's around here)... talked with a couple of barge drivers too.

[CharlieJ]

Onboard Tehani, 5300 pounds dry, 7400 loaded for cruise, we run our 8 hp engine at a high idle (just under rhe START mark) and get our 5.6 knot hull speed. Going to wide open throttle gives us 6.1 knots and puts the drains underwater so the cockpit gets water in it.

Hull speed is based on wavelength. Once your stern wave moves out from under the counter, and your bow wave moves aft, you are climbing a hill. On a true displacement hull you just aren't gonna go very much over hull speed.  I seriously doubt a 50 hp would give over 6.5 knots.

Fact of life with displacement hulls

Edited to add-

At that high idle we average about 15 mpg, flat water
no wind or current.

[excavman]

Thanks Guys,

From all the info I've gleaned from this and other sites my plan to go 'upstream' on the Miss is a definite "no go". I'll load out at Ken lake and trailer on up to Chicago to put in the big pond there. I can always do the Miss 'downstream' on the way back to warmer climates in the fall.

Larry

[tomwatt]

Charlie, thanks, that observation makes sense in a way that looking at graph/curve doesn't explain things. But even looking at the graph, it does show something like a hill climb (almost like look at the speed of light/acceleration curve). Great info.
Larry, sounds like a fun trip regardless. Something very "Mark Twain" about doing that trip. At least for myself, it speaks to boyhood dreams and sparks the imagination. Hope you guys have a great time... and post up some pics from along the way!

[excavman]

Charley, it's good to hear from you, glad First Light made the gulf passage ok. David has told me a lot about you, maybe I'll get to meet you here at Port O one of these days.

Tom, mentioning Mark Twain, I had a thought yesterday about making up a line with a weight on it and a knot every six feet to check depth with like he did --- just in case my depth finder quits --- .

Larry

ps--- Charley,  I finished the bottom paint yesterday, what a job.

[CharlieJ]

Doesn't everyone have a lead line aboard? We sure do, with yarn every fathom and a red yarn at our 'go-no go' depth.

Always aboard.

[Grime]

Doesn't everyone have a lead line aboard? We sure do, with yarn every fathom and a red yarn at our 'go-no go' depth.

Always aboard.

I've got one. Don't trust my depth sounder.

[DavidCrosby]

excavman,

I sailed my Morgan 30 on the Mississippi for about four years (2000 - 2004). Between dams, when the river is not in flood it is pretty mellow. I have never been south of the last lock and dam. I can tell you though that standing along the river bank in downtown St. Louis, the river is moving quite fast. From reading stories, I also know that it becomes a bit of a struggle for those that go down the Mississippi when they turn the corner to go upstream on the Ohio.

During the summer of 2002, I helped a friend take his Tartan 30 up the Mississippi, Illinois, Des Plaines, Chicago Sanitary Canal and Chicago Rivers to Lake Michigan. It was a slow process. It took us six long (18 hour) days to get to Lake Michigan. It is definitely a motoring trip with the mast down.

I would not recommend trying to go against the current from the Ohio up to St. Louis. You may find your self going backwards.

Regarding debris in the river. When the river is in flood stage or recently had been in flood there is a tremendous amount of debris and much of it is just below the surface. Other times of the year when at normal pool and between the locks and dams, the river is quite peaceful.

You'll see a lot of barge traffic, give them room and you will have no problems. They really don't leave much of a wake (again, my reference is between dams and when the river is quiet). However, the big cabin cruisers are a different story. They are moving fast and pushing a lot of water out of their way. They will through a 4' wave in their wake. I found these to be quite annoying.

Be prepared to be self sufficient for the vast majority of the trip. There are very few services along the river.

Have fun with whatever you decide to do.

[okawbow]

I don't want to hijack this thread; but does anyone have actual experience going the 45 or so miles up the mouth of the Ohio to the Tennessee? I plan on giong down from St Louis in April and taking the Tenn-Tom to Mobile. The diesel in my Cheoy Lee 31 ketch is strong, but it's 44 years old. How long can I expect it to take to motor/sail from the Mississippi to the Tennessee?