Jaager

Bill,
All of HIC's published plans are available from The Smithsonian at 1:48 usually.  Using the S.I. plans as a starting point is significantly better than messing with a scan from the book.  The cost is $10/sheet and $5/12 for shipping, plus the wait time.  Given the cost and hassle in replication - it may be economical to order 2-3 copies of it from S.I.
Blue Jacket has a solid hull kit of a USRC  - guessing that it is the 51 ton vessel =
Standard: ITEM # K1106A |Kit: $145 | LOA: 19" Scale: 1/4"=1'
The 31 ton would be a bit smaller and the 80 ton a bit larger. Not as much as imagined if thinking in linear - since tons is a cubed function.  The LOA includes the spars?

Bill,
All of HIC's published plans are available from The Smithsonian at 1:48 usually.  Using the S.I. plans as a starting point is significantly better than messing with a scan from the book.  The cost is $10/sheet and $5/12 for shipping, plus the wait time.  Given the cost and hassle in replication - it may be economical to order 2-3 copies of it from S.I.
Blue Jacket has a solid hull kit of a USRC  - guessing that it is the 51 ton vessel =
Standard: ITEM # K1106A |Kit: $145 | LOA: 19" Scale: 1/4"=1'
The 31 ton would be a bit smaller and the 80 ton a bit larger. Not as much as imagined if thinking in linear - since tons is a cubed function.  The LOA includes the spars?

Gerard,
 
Not having the Leavitt plans,  I will interpret what I see in your pix.
It is all bends.
The space is equal to the width of a frame. i.e. 2/3 room  1/3 space.  This is very common for Antebellum American ships but not so much for the end of the Colonial period.  As far as I know, not much is known about about smaller vessels, but for frigates on up, it was almost all room.  The space was about 1 inch.  This was a 10-20 year span - things evolved post Revolution.  Perhaps the folks at TA&M will find something someday.
 
The bends -  #5
The gap at the keel is unique to me. No floors, it is as though it is intended that there be deadwood above the keel along the entire length and half bends butt against it.  Not the strongest method that I have seen.
The outside line is outer face of frame closest to the mid ship station (the dead flat - because there is no bevel on it).
It goes up to the underside of the rail.
The next line is the bevel of that frame and the mid ship face of the next bend.
BUT, that frame ends at the deck level.
The black line is the bevel of aft side frame.  ( I am guessing that the convention of letters for fore bends and numbers for aft bends is being followed.)
It is black to make it easier to follow.
The next 3 lines are the inside shapes of the molded dimension.  The aft frame ends at the deck level.
I think it is intended that there be a single stanchion (top) at every bend.
 
You may trust Leavitt,  but in your place I would scan the frame patterns,  open them in a drawing program ( Painter for me),  adjust for the scanner scaling aberration,  scale to my preferred scale,  select the right side and horizontally flip it and use that for the left side. (instead of trusting that Leavitt was able to draw the let side to be identical to the right.)  But I would also mate the two sides at the center line and define the floor and make whole bends.
 
I am not sure about Continental brig sized vessels, but most warships seem to have planking covering the inside of the tops. (A feeble attempt at amour?)
With POF, I am enamored with curves and framing of the swimming body.  The area above the main wale/LWL not so much.  It looks more like house carpenter framing - mundane and boring. It only needs to be functional and is almost never elegant.  I cover it with planking.  Because I cover it and it makes for a stronger hull, I make my framing above the LWL solid - including the spaces.
 

OK,  some definitions - 
a FRAME -  floor + 2nd futtock + 4th futtock/top/half top (depending)  
also a FRAME  1st futtock + 3rd futtock + top/half top
a BEND   is both of the frames when joined together as a unit  -  the overlap at each butt makes the unit a strong one.
 
French and North Americans  generally framed using all bends.   The English ( or at least their navy ) often used a wider spacing of bends and had free standing frames (filling frames) in the gap between.
(Butt joints are weak and in a model a free standing frame tends to be fragile.  This makes RN framing a bit of a PITA for POF.)
 
The Body plan is the stations in a stack.   The stations define the mid line of the bend at its location.  All stations define the mid line of a bend.  But, not all bends have a defined mid line on the plan.  It varies with the ship and where along the profile the station is.  It might be every 4th or every 3rd or every other.  I have USN corvettes with 8 bends between stations in the mid ship zone.
 
The confusion you seem to have with bevels and station lines may be because you are thinking the stations are useful for standard POF methods.   They are not.  Except as a check on your curve plotting and as a short cut on every other to every 4th bend, they are useless.  Each bend must be lofted.  If you glue up the stock for each bend 1st,  only the fore and aft shape for each bend  (Hahn).   If you assemble the isolated frame timbers into a bend,  the mid line of each bend also needs lofting.   There are maybe 40 bends in a Cruizer,  so it is 80 or 120 lines that need plotting to loft the framing.
 
The plans for Lexington are actually those of an RN Cruizer brig.  A different era and a different country, 
 
When Davis writes about under bevels, I am not sure that he understood why it was significant.  It was a significant factor in the way ships were framed before 1860.  But Davis was schooled in the methods that were used around 1900 and  at that time much more was done in the mold loft than was done in the earlier era.
 
If you want to see a method where the station lines are important - vital even - check out my log for La Renommee.  I have not presented how to do the lofting or do true POF yet - (how to use easy release bonding and temporary fillers for the spaces, but you may be able to intuit how).
 
One other thing, the floors that Davis is presenting are very short.  The ABS specifies that floors should be 60% of the beam.  What Davis is showing is closer to the length of a half floor which would be in the frame with the 1st futtocks.  Rather than butt at the keel,  the 1st futtocks would butt the half floor.   This was more common in French and North American ships,  but the RN often used a short version termed a butt chock over the keel. 
 

I have picked up a 'rule' from this forum that in case the exact scale is not available to always pick the next smaller item available, with the view that something bigger appears much quicker out of scale. So far this has worked for me.

There are definitive threads here covering sail making in scale.  Also about the fabric or paper that have been found to simulate sails as well as is possible - given the limitations in scaling the material both in weave and in thickness.   As far as furling the sails.  The consensus seems to be that the depth of the sail should be 1/3 - to avoid a bulky look. The material should be as light as possible.  It is just my feeling, but white sails are probably a conceit of painters.  I doubt that the canvas was bleached. 
Tabling and attachment of bolt ropes and rigging are also discussed.
 
Polyester, ugh!

There was a time when a shammy / chamois cloth was suggested.

There was a time when a shammy / chamois cloth was suggested.

To wax or not to wax is an interesting area of discussion.  If you DO decide to wax, I would recommend against using beeswax.  Too acid.  I use conservator's wax which is acid free.  Below is what I use, but there are many kinds.
 

Here is a link for linen yarn that goes down to 90/3.
 
https://store.vavstuga.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_code=yarns-linen-lace
 
90/3 means three strands of 90 LEA.
 
ETSY can get into Baltic suppliers of raw linen yarn in cones to feed a ropewalk.   Unfortunately the quality control could be better.
If it was a lump that made it to the final twist up rope -it would just be an annoyance.  With my machine, it produces a feed yarn break, which is another level of frustration.

going into the area of speculation and supposition it seems as if you know that what you are proposing to do is likely to be a bad choice.  Wishing to be told that it could work, you ask here.  The likely consensus here is that if you are serious about milling, you are on the wrong path.  If you are just on a lark, you should perhaps widen your possibilities a bit.
 
I am thinking that speed is a useless standard if the machine lacks the power to maintain it when the cutter is exposed to a load.
 
If you want light weight, consider trying a EuroTool DRL 300.00.   It is a small drill press, so the quill bearings are not designed for much of a lateral load.  But with light shallow cuts, it may do.  If it does not work, at least you will have a drill press for model scale work, providing that it is not wrecked by forcing it.  It can be upgraded by attaching a XY table - AliExpress fronts for several Chinese suppliers of generic XY tables.
The cutters will need to be really sharp and likely high quality.
This machine is probably not that different from something low cost and light weight that is labeled as being a "milling machine".

When I was a pup and in grade school, I had a 1 foot wooden ruler with a metal strip in a slot on one edge.  When boxwood ruler blanks and old rulers are being proposed as a material to be repurposed for blocks and deck furniture, I immediately imagined that it was these old elementary school rulers, and not a carpenter's folding ruler.   Even in the 1950's, I think Boxwood had been replaced with a less expensive hardwood species on this side of the pond.  The school rulers are much thicker.  The carpenter's rulers are generally  not thick enough to be worth the effort as well as having inherent worth on their own.

When I was a pup and in grade school, I had a 1 foot wooden ruler with a metal strip in a slot on one edge.  When boxwood ruler blanks and old rulers are being proposed as a material to be repurposed for blocks and deck furniture, I immediately imagined that it was these old elementary school rulers, and not a carpenter's folding ruler.   Even in the 1950's, I think Boxwood had been replaced with a less expensive hardwood species on this side of the pond.  The school rulers are much thicker.  The carpenter's rulers are generally  not thick enough to be worth the effort as well as having inherent worth on their own.

going into the area of speculation and supposition it seems as if you know that what you are proposing to do is likely to be a bad choice.  Wishing to be told that it could work, you ask here.  The likely consensus here is that if you are serious about milling, you are on the wrong path.  If you are just on a lark, you should perhaps widen your possibilities a bit.
 
I am thinking that speed is a useless standard if the machine lacks the power to maintain it when the cutter is exposed to a load.
 
If you want light weight, consider trying a EuroTool DRL 300.00.   It is a small drill press, so the quill bearings are not designed for much of a lateral load.  But with light shallow cuts, it may do.  If it does not work, at least you will have a drill press for model scale work, providing that it is not wrecked by forcing it.  It can be upgraded by attaching a XY table - AliExpress fronts for several Chinese suppliers of generic XY tables.
The cutters will need to be really sharp and likely high quality.
This machine is probably not that different from something low cost and light weight that is labeled as being a "milling machine".

I checked Little Machine Shop  - the model that is in your zone seems to be a version if a Sieg SX1P or SX1LP
Not low cost or light weight, but it looks to be quality for a hobby machine.   It is probably a good idea to make sure that the decision points that you use be ones that matter.

going into the area of speculation and supposition it seems as if you know that what you are proposing to do is likely to be a bad choice.  Wishing to be told that it could work, you ask here.  The likely consensus here is that if you are serious about milling, you are on the wrong path.  If you are just on a lark, you should perhaps widen your possibilities a bit.
 
I am thinking that speed is a useless standard if the machine lacks the power to maintain it when the cutter is exposed to a load.
 
If you want light weight, consider trying a EuroTool DRL 300.00.   It is a small drill press, so the quill bearings are not designed for much of a lateral load.  But with light shallow cuts, it may do.  If it does not work, at least you will have a drill press for model scale work, providing that it is not wrecked by forcing it.  It can be upgraded by attaching a XY table - AliExpress fronts for several Chinese suppliers of generic XY tables.
The cutters will need to be really sharp and likely high quality.
This machine is probably not that different from something low cost and light weight that is labeled as being a "milling machine".

I checked Little Machine Shop  - the model that is in your zone seems to be a version if a Sieg SX1P or SX1LP
Not low cost or light weight, but it looks to be quality for a hobby machine.   It is probably a good idea to make sure that the decision points that you use be ones that matter.

I checked Little Machine Shop  - the model that is in your zone seems to be a version if a Sieg SX1P or SX1LP
Not low cost or light weight, but it looks to be quality for a hobby machine.   It is probably a good idea to make sure that the decision points that you use be ones that matter.

On Grecian, note that the sides of the ports do not line up with this "as built" plan.
If they wished to copy the design, I do not envy their version of an intern who would have gotten the job of reorienting the stations for the new version.
 
Oh, and HIC did not completely redraw lines plans to his particular style.  He duplicated and cleaned up the plans as he found them.  He used the style of the original NA.

When I imagine mass production of knees, truck sides, deck beams by milling a billet and then using a table saw to slice off the finals, I obsess about the amount of wood lost to kerf.
 
There was a recent thread (gun trucks?) that reminded me of an efficient way to increase the productivity when using this method.
Make the billet up using slices that already the desired thickness that are held together using a reversible glue.
Spot bonding using PVA and immersion into 2-propanol.  A tissue paper spacer between each segment may speed the reversal.
 
I just made up a batch of small sponge stick glue applicators using bamboo toothpicks and Duco - and Duco would be an alternative, but I think I would like PVA better.
 
 

My copy is just here.  From paging the book,  Wow!   If any details were missed,  They have to be microscopic.
A truly magnificent tour de force.
Gerard,  What's next, Old Son?

Thanks.  
 
Good to know that the subject of my complaint is valid and was noticed.  The bad part is that the basic hull can stand for Hebe and more than a few more French 18's and HMS Leda and a large number of RN sisters,  including  HMS Shannon and two that are still with us.  A second supplement with the correct lines and all the variations in the derivatives may find a market.  But it might give birth to kits and any scratch versions would no longer be unique.
 
Since    L'Egyptienne  looks to be correct for what I need,  I look forward to exploring her.
 

Gerard,
Does this include a classic Body Plan with lines inside the planking?
 
My complaint with the early work of your former associates regarding La Venus is that that Body Plan is outside planking.

Guilty! as to my sources.

I do not have a wayback machine, so I cannot ask the naval architects and builders directly.  I have had hands on practice with a lot of plans - pre 1860.  This covers about a 200 year span -1660 - 1860.
These are my conclusions from the available evidence.
 
The Stations define the frame shapes and orientation.
The Stations were the portion of the plans that were enlarged to full size on the mold loft floor.  The timber patterns were the Station shapes and had marks to define the intermediate frame shapes.  
If there were 20 stations and 80 bends - 160 frames - there would have been 20 sets of patterns made for the actual ship. For a model, we have been making 80-160 patterns. 
It would probably have been crazy making to have tried to have used an angle jig with a plumb line to erect the frames.
The keel is easier to shim than to try to deal with vertically canted frames.
Large ships were not usually designed to have much if any drag.  The captain and sailing master (?) (the technical non-com) would have adjusted the sailing trim prn anyway - regardless of what was designed.
Smaller craft (schooners - sloops - etc) tended to be the ones that could have had significant drag.  The scantlings were less, so a sloped keel on the ways would be easier to build.
The sides of the ports were defined the frames.  With a significant drag and the frames erected perpendicular to the keel, the angle of the sides of the ports would have been .... strange - funky - disorienting.  It would have been a laughing stock.
 
As an aside,  the ports sills and lintels followed the sheer of the deck.  The gun trucks rolled on an angled deck the farther aft or fore was the port. using a rectangular stick as a support for gun port framing is only valid for two or three ports at the midship.