Jaager

It is your unrealistic expectation about what instructions can help you with and lead you thru that can leave you as one of the majority who attempt this model ship building-  an ash shadow on the field.
A plastic kit is the assembly of a model - instructions can lead you thru it.
A wooden ship model is something entirely different.  It is the assembly of many models.  But you must also fabricate each of those models before you.can assemble them.
It would require that instructions be complete for fabrication as well as assembly.  Tools are needed for the fabrication.  Each tool has its own level of required knowledge and practice for you to get it to do the job that you wish. 
A ship in any culture at any time involves everything that that culture can produce at its most sophisticated level.  Thru the 17th and much of the 18th it also involved its level in the visual arts.
Every part of a ship is unique in shape.  Essentially everything is curved.  Each curve is different.  The primary material is wood.  It too involves a much deeper level of experience with it than any synthetic product.
Good plans and instructions should show you WHAT you have to fabricate.  It is almost impossible to tell or show you HOW.   It just involves too much.  It means that if you have to ask,  then you do not already have the skills - developed from prior experience - to just jump in the deep end. 
 
It is certainly possible to start with a monster like Victory and see it thru to finish.  But the learning part makes it go slowly and the rewards and positive feedback is so slow in coming that few have the patience to do it.

This is two generations after I started all this and I have no hands on experience  with kits in this series,   ( I did start with the old Model Shipways  kits - yellow box  - carved Basswood hulls.)
but if you have little or no experience with hardwood woodworking - especially at scale level - (plastic kits as a lead-in probably only helps with painting at scale - and given the kits that you express an interest in - there will be little to no painting with the wood)  -  you might consider a careful and sure footed entry into all this.
 
https://modelexpo-online.com/Model-Shipways-Lowell-Grand-Banks-Dory-with-Tools-124-Scale-Skill-Level-I-of-the-Shipwright-Learning-Series_p_3959.html
 
A boat is certainly not as sexy as a first rate  or a cutter even  -  but even cutters had boats -  understanding boats is a valuable skill/knowledge base  and the actual work will give you enough of a taste to know if this is something that you really want to plunge into without investing a house payment.
 
Reading:   For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale    would be time well spent.
 

This is two generations after I started all this and I have no hands on experience  with kits in this series,   ( I did start with the old Model Shipways  kits - yellow box  - carved Basswood hulls.)
but if you have little or no experience with hardwood woodworking - especially at scale level - (plastic kits as a lead-in probably only helps with painting at scale - and given the kits that you express an interest in - there will be little to no painting with the wood)  -  you might consider a careful and sure footed entry into all this.
 
https://modelexpo-online.com/Model-Shipways-Lowell-Grand-Banks-Dory-with-Tools-124-Scale-Skill-Level-I-of-the-Shipwright-Learning-Series_p_3959.html
 
A boat is certainly not as sexy as a first rate  or a cutter even  -  but even cutters had boats -  understanding boats is a valuable skill/knowledge base  and the actual work will give you enough of a taste to know if this is something that you really want to plunge into without investing a house payment.
 
Reading:   For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale    would be time well spent.
 

I agree with GrandpaPhil.
 
The other kits on your list leave a lot to be desired for a first wood ship kit..
They would tend to be more discouraging than helpful in getting started in this hobby.
 

Certainly, that could work easily. No need for epoxy, however. Thin shellac should do the trick easily. It will saturate the paper easily. There should be no need to glue the disks together. Just push a pin into the center of the stack of disks and soak them in shellac. This is how they used to make insulated electronic components in the days before plastics.

This is another armchair experiment (denken experimenten) :
In light of the suggestion that the Dremel carbide cutoff disks be strengthened by a coat of low viscosity epoxy,
could sheaves be made from paper or cardboard soaked with epoxy?
A cork borer! could be used to cut the disk.  ! (a metal tube - usually brass -with one end pared to a knife edge)
Three layers of paper - the middle having a smaller diameter - makes the groove-   It could be made in any color.

This is another armchair experiment (denken experimenten) :
In light of the suggestion that the Dremel carbide cutoff disks be strengthened by a coat of low viscosity epoxy,
could sheaves be made from paper or cardboard soaked with epoxy?
A cork borer! could be used to cut the disk.  ! (a metal tube - usually brass -with one end pared to a knife edge)
Three layers of paper - the middle having a smaller diameter - makes the groove-   It could be made in any color.

For years, I used a Sears 16 gal wet/dry shopvac that was so loud that hearing protection was needed to avoid hours of ringing ears.
Going for the quiet, I bought a Festool Midi - a now discontinued model.  One that for some reason did not want a cyclone trap in-line.
It was less noisy and pulled enough air volume, but it has one characteristic that makes it useless to me and a wasted $600.  It stops after a few minutes.  I need an hour or more, not 10 minutes and me having to cycles the on-off.  
I bought a 14gal Rigid at Home Depot  for $100 that is just as quiet, and stays on.  It is for my garage.  In my model room, I use an Atrix Canister Revo Red Vacuum . It has a clear trap chamber.  No silent, but not painful either, 
 

I just love how I learn something new from nearly every one of your posts, Kurt! (And, reading back issues of Ships in Scale, the same goes for your fine articles in that publication.) In this instance, I must confess that despite my life-long wide-ranging pursuit of nautical trivia, I've never until now encountered a seaman's speculum which, of course, sent me scurrying to Google. While never having had any first-hand encounters with a speculum, seaman's or otherwise, I'd previously understood it to be a medical instrument commonly employed by gynecologists and proctologists.
 
It's not unusual that we find medical and dental instruments useful in ship modeling, but I'm at a loss to see what use a modeler might find for a speculum in the model shipyard, except, perhaps, to gently spread rigging in order to access inaccessible inboard areas. My "Googling" reveals that disposable speculums are now made in plastic. Might these be particularly useful to plastic model builders? "Enquiring minds want to know" what use modelers, or seamen, for that matter, might have for a speculum?    
 
 
 
      

We have had a recent discussion that essentially pointed out that experience with plastic kits is not much help in prep for tackling a wooden kit.   One is pure assembly and the other is fabrication and assembly.  Plastic kit instructions are generally complete as far as assembly.  In comparison mass market wooden kit instructions are more general  and especially for fabrication there is an expectation that outside text and journal articles will be used as supplements.  There is often frustration and unrealized expectations. with wooden kit instructions   This is why the "start simple" admonition is almost a natural law.   For large and complex wooden ship models there is much skill , knowledge and experience that is expected  in a modeler who attempts it.
 
That said, the rigging is the same in plastic and wood.   Although, the hull is still of some size, 1:150 is a miniature scale.  It is difficult to find rigging line that is usable and in harmony with the scale.
The Le Superbe that i am familiar with is a Sane designed 74.  There were many sisters built in this class.   Boudroit started his published inventory with a 4 volume monograph of this class.   The masting and rigging  are about as well documented as is possible.
Scale limitations in available material will make matching the text very difficult.  Avoiding being over scale is a real challenge.
The spars made from plastic at larger scales are fragile.  Having tension taut rigging and not snapping the plastic spars, I suspect is a long shot.  The taut lines probably have to come rigid before placement material.  Wire is better than fiber at this.  

This is what I was referring to.   Fitted to the outer edge of the wale would work.   In a model, it does not matter - as long as the outer edge of the channel is as far out as needed.  But should you be attempting to replicate actual practice in your model, reducing the wale thickness would not be done.   It was acknowledged  to be a potential disaster at worst and bad practice at best, when gunports were cut into a wale.  The guns were the reason that a warship even existed, so it was done where necessary anyway.
 
As far as a the bolts being drilled thru the width of a channel,  the major force on a channel is in the same plane as the bolts.  The bolts were probably stronger than the wood, but the bolts would not be in line with a chain. 

This is what I was referring to.   Fitted to the outer edge of the wale would work.   In a model, it does not matter - as long as the outer edge of the channel is as far out as needed.  But should you be attempting to replicate actual practice in your model, reducing the wale thickness would not be done.   It was acknowledged  to be a potential disaster at worst and bad practice at best, when gunports were cut into a wale.  The guns were the reason that a warship even existed, so it was done where necessary anyway.
 
As far as a the bolts being drilled thru the width of a channel,  the major force on a channel is in the same plane as the bolts.  The bolts were probably stronger than the wood, but the bolts would not be in line with a chain. 

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.
 
The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.
A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.
 
The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.
A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.
 
The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.
A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

This is what I was referring to.   Fitted to the outer edge of the wale would work.   In a model, it does not matter - as long as the outer edge of the channel is as far out as needed.  But should you be attempting to replicate actual practice in your model, reducing the wale thickness would not be done.   It was acknowledged  to be a potential disaster at worst and bad practice at best, when gunports were cut into a wale.  The guns were the reason that a warship even existed, so it was done where necessary anyway.
 
As far as a the bolts being drilled thru the width of a channel,  the major force on a channel is in the same plane as the bolts.  The bolts were probably stronger than the wood, but the bolts would not be in line with a chain. 

Bill,
 
To add to your stew of options:
 
Using a drill press to drive sanding drums
The motor being in your line of sight is the major negative.  In a thickness sander function - this is not a problem.  When shaping frames with a serious bevel, it can be.
If your drill press has a large steel table - a Carter magnetic fence is a quick and dirty but not low cost help to the thicknessing function.  Fine tuning the thickness gap will be difficult and tedious though.
 
There are sleeveless sanding drums that let you use off the shelf 9 x 11 sheets.
They not only come in standard 3" high with a variety of diameter variety,  but there is an additional 3" diameter drum that is 6" high and one that is 4.5" high.  The 6" is a big help for shaping frames if you favor the larger scales.
 
(Roger has covered the following - we were typing at the same time - me very slowly)
To speculate about your present machine:
The original version used a DC motor  - the  present version switched over to an AC motor.
I have no idea about physical size of  a DC motor vs an AC motor to get the same power output.
I also do not know if AC has any advantage over DC in efficiency, size and maximum possible force.
You may wish to determine the force/power difference and not replicate a possible under powered situation.

I did exactly what Roger suggested.  Except that I paid a woodworker with a lathe to turn my Maple drum.
I used the old NRG plans -  at the time, there was no model scale ready made alternative.
I made it 11" long with a 9" circumference-  The available media then was 9 x 11 sheets.    The diameter was OK, but I would make it 12" long
I also used / use contact cement.  It is a positive bear to undo and clean up.   I am fairly sure that Elmer's rubber cement would hold as well.  You can clean it up using your thumb and friction.
 
I enclose the motor at the bottom.  The bottom is an OK location.  the enclosed is a very bad idea.  Leave the ends open and cut a big hole in the base and raise the unit on large rubber corks for feet.
Maybe big holes in the sides.  The motor can get hot during a long session.
 
A tapered groove/ wedge cut for the leading edge can save tearing but it is tricky to do well.  
All and all,  my Byrnes machine is the much better option if you can afford it.

Bill,
I am not shilling for Jim Byrnes or anything.  I believe that quality and realistic prices should be acknowledged and praised,  with machines that match our needs.  As for budget,  I can't make any helpful guidance.
For media, I buy rolls directly from Klingspor.  They are just south of me in Tarheelia, but UPS is everywhere.   It is my thought that your general situation is not unique and the open decision points would apply to others, exploring this scratch build universe.
If you do replace, I hold a positive wish that you get a worthwhile return, should  you sell your present machine.
 
As for the Byrnes, be sure to get spare screws et al.    A small screw top plastic container,  a 1/4-1/2" thick scrap board with holes for the Allen wrenches,  heavy duty double stick tape to fix all this to the machine base deck,  and everything is to hand - as well as a place to park screws when you change media.  If you just place them on your bench,  small parts run away when you are not looking.

I tend to think in proportions, rather than absolute values in a situation like this. 
You are reinvesting about 50% of the total value in a used machine of inferior design.
For another 50% you could buy a a machine that is more reliable, better precision, and allows for a less expensive and wider variety of sanding media.

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.
 
The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.
A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.
 
The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.
A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

I was just reading text about the life stage of a model.   The position of the channels was used to date the point in the ship's career that the model represented.   Position X and it was = before year N and position Y = after.    The point being that channel location could change.     

This does not seem to be a hostile and defensive situation.  There is no obvious owner who is being protective.   I think asking for forgiveness for breaching copyright after publishing this, rather than asking permission before hand,  is the more efficient and productive course.  
In the fantasy situation where there is an actual copyright holder for this document,  it could smoke them out.  This occurring if  the probably 130+ year old owner actually cares.   This present stance is a pointless gesture to make an absolute statement.   It would be a better statement to add a footnote.  Just explain that we are willing to remove the document if the author comes forward and requests it.

I was just reading text about the life stage of a model.   The position of the channels was used to date the point in the ship's career that the model represented.   Position X and it was = before year N and position Y = after.    The point being that channel location could change.