Advanced Search
Search

BENTONVILLE - IMO 9313929

< Previous PhotoNext Photo >
Ship
8476
FavoriteComment
More
Full Screen
Exfir Data
Download Photo

Photo
details

Photographer:
DEREK SANDS [ View profile ]
Captured:
Apr 20, 2012
Added:
Apr 24, 2012
Views:
847
Image Resolution:
1,500 x 1,127

Description:

IMO number : 9313929
Name of ship : BENTONVILLE (since 01-09-2010)
Call Sign : OZCZ2
MMSI : 219204000
Gross tonnage : 48853 (since 01-12-2006)
DWT : 53702
Type of ship : Container Ship (during 2006)
Year of build : 2006
Flag : Denmark (since 01-06-2011)

Vessel
particulars

Current name:
MAERSK BENTONVILLE

Former name(s):

 -  Bentonville (Until 2013 Jul)

 -  Maersk Bentonville (Until 2010 Sep)

Vessel Type:
Container Ship
Gross tonnage:
48,788 tons
Summer DWT:
53,702 tons
Length:
294 m
Beam:
32 m
Draught:
13.5 m

AIS Position
of this ship

Last known position:
18°29’44” N, 20°32’45.29” W
Status:
Speed, course (heading):
16.9kts, 202.5° (203°)
Destination:
 - Location:
Santos
 - Arrival:
3rd May 2024 / 09:00:31 UTC
Last update:
5 days ago
Source:
AIS (ShipXplorer)

Photo
Categories

This ship exists in the following categories:

Shipping - 1 photos

Ships under Repair or Conversion - 2 photos

Containerships built 2001-2010 - 61 photos

Photographers
of this ship

(28)

COMMENT THIS PHOTO(6)

Newest First
person
Thanks Rick, Bob and Cornelia for your comments

rgds
Derek

Edit
comment

person
I agree Jens; they do have a certain panache about them too.
Designed in the 'good old days', just 7 or 8 years ago, when *express* liner services were all the rage and Maersk, & K Line, to a lesser degree, and a few other companies were building ships with enormous operating speeds and commensurate bunker consumption. (around 450 tpd = tons per day, in some cases)
When the bunker rates went through the roof in about 2007/8 (I think) there was a serious re-think about the designated speeds & affordability of these services.
I spoke to a few engineers from Sulzer and MAN B&W who were sent to liase with the ships engineers on some of these thirsty demons.
Their brief was to operate the main engines at much lower revolutions than was ever contemplated at the design & build stage.
This caused a multitude of problems for all sides: the Companies (who were desperate to reduce operating costs) the manufacturers engineers who were tasked to retro-introduce fuel saving measures and lower engine revolutions, and lastly, the engineers aboard, who were inundated with commands from the company Head Offices to *daily* supply operating consumptions, main engine data including engine component temperatures, vibration and fuel delivery problems that came with far lower engine revolutions.....and probably a lot more data than I am unaware of.
I spoke to many a Chief and 2/E's who were exasperated by the almost impossible demands from their Head Offices.
As you may recall, all the Maersk 'B' Class were laid up for a year or two, as a result.
Now, I presume, the operational problems have been overcome at additional conversion costs, and these greyhounds of the sea are now operating at a very sedate 18 knots/ 33 km / 21 mph per hour (approximately)....
& a damn fine photo too Derek!
Regards, Rick

Edit
comment

person
Must have one helluva-long prop-shaft! (apparently she's not diesel-electric).

Edit
comment

person
They are some of the containerships I like best, different design and actually built for being ultra-fast speet, at 29,2 knots !! More info here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VWS_4000

Edit
comment

person
Thanks Jens,

Yes these certainly do look very different to most other container ships, I like them myself they always look fast.

best regards
Derek

Edit
comment

person
Great photo, Derek! Somehow she looks strangely compressed at this angle, like a feeder with a superstructure that's way too large:-)

Edit
comment