Jaager

Would it be possible that the link be provided?

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance,  I would be greedy.  I would be very, very greedy.

Roger,
I get a continuous/ daily stream of email  missives from these guys, but they do have some useful stuff=  Woodworkers's Supply.  I did a search for casters, and this product might could solve your mobility problem for ~ $40. 
https://woodworker.com/2-12-diameter-total-locking-casters-mssu-166-751.asp
 
 

I am more than confident that what you say is true. 
 
In the lab, we had a rule on rinsing the soap off of just washed glassware. The first rinse removes 95%. The next rinse removes 95% of remaining 5%.  Each subsequent rinse does the same.  It will never be 100% removed.  Like we had to decide when we had done enough rinses, for precision on wood stock,  we need to decide when it is precise enough.  I would not be surprised if there was not a rule to the effect that the cost for each increment that increases precision: that much more,  has an inverse cost to the additional fraction towards absolute precision that it provides.  We need to decide for ourselves when close enough is good enough.  For me, a hand feed Byrnes machine is close enough.

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance,  I would be greedy.  I would be very, very greedy.

I have just skimmed this log.  I am going with the thought that you are still trying to do this using Basswood and or plywood, since I did not see different information.  You are making this much more difficult and unrewarding by using a species (Basswood) that is no joy to work and lacks the characteristics that you need.  Plywood makes for a stable base for a tool or a baseboard on which to assemble a hull.  It is just ugly as an actual part of a hull, and no fun to work either.
If I am correct about the species of wood,  it is fighting you and makes for a serious handicap from the start.  It does not need to be this difficult.
I see no location for you, so I have no clue as to the species of suitable wood near to you.  Using an appropriate species makes the job easier and the right wood is a joy to shape and assemble.
A frustrating factor is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for those who are not their own sawmill to obtain the proper wood species.
 

Roger,
I get a continuous/ daily stream of email  missives from these guys, but they do have some useful stuff=  Woodworkers's Supply.  I did a search for casters, and this product might could solve your mobility problem for ~ $40. 
https://woodworker.com/2-12-diameter-total-locking-casters-mssu-166-751.asp
 
 

I am more than confident that what you say is true. 
 
In the lab, we had a rule on rinsing the soap off of just washed glassware. The first rinse removes 95%. The next rinse removes 95% of remaining 5%.  Each subsequent rinse does the same.  It will never be 100% removed.  Like we had to decide when we had done enough rinses, for precision on wood stock,  we need to decide when it is precise enough.  I would not be surprised if there was not a rule to the effect that the cost for each increment that increases precision: that much more,  has an inverse cost to the additional fraction towards absolute precision that it provides.  We need to decide for ourselves when close enough is good enough.  For me, a hand feed Byrnes machine is close enough.

Roger,
My question: how will you secure the wood stock to the constant feed?  I see a lip at the bottom as pushing it, but i suspect that the stock will want to cant and if the angle becomes a critical one, it will come flying back at you.
My bandsaw leaves an unsmooth surface on my stock.  I have to sand both sides. It takes several passes to get to spec.  Finding the sweet spot for bandsaw slice thickness is an ongoing challenge.
Thick enough that the final product is 220 smooth on both sides, but that not many extra passes at 80 grit are needed.  I flip and/or rotate my feed.  I do that as I get it thru the drum.  An auto feed I see as dropping over the back cliff. There is no way to do a proper flip/rotate. 
 
I use Best Test rubber cement to hold paper backed medium to my disk sander - double coat.  It holds well enough, is easy to peal off, and cleans just using my thumb.  The no skid backing on 10X Norton is chemically incompatible with rubber cement,  so big volume big box store stuff I cannot use.
 
I have a similar home made thickness sander.  It is a box and I made the mistake of enclosing the lower motor chamber - it becomes a right oven so I can't lock on and run for a long session.
I use cloth backed Klingspor  - long rolls - direct from the company.  But, I did not find the courage to try rubber cement for it.  I still used contact cement - double layer - it holds well enough - boy does it hold - I can use naphtha to clean it up, but it does not dissolve it, just denatures it and not all that quickly either.  I did break down and purchase a Byrnes machine.  The media is much easier to change. It does not overheat.  My old machine has clean media and is ready to go, but the Byrnes is so much easier that it staying in storage.
 
My suggestion - go with the Byrnes.
Alternative -  fix casters on your old units and pull it out into your shop floor and give the feed improvement experiment a pass.
 
Oh, the 12" disk sander will still be there.  I have a 10" on my old and retired 3 wheel Emco Meyer band saw, but I have never mounted it.  I also bought a disk that fits the arbor of my 10" tablesaw - an on sale thing - that makes it a disk sander - still in the box.  If my 5" Byrnes will not do it, the Harbor  Freight 4x36 belt sander will.

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance,  I would be greedy.  I would be very, very greedy.

1) Are you flushing out dips between the moulds? 
2) Are you filling gaps between the planks of the first layer?
If it is the first, a yellow PVA glued piece of wood veneer that is then sanded to a smooth run would be a sure way to go.
If it is the second, why bother?  It will all be hidden by the outer planking layer.  I can't imagine that it is going to float, so what is the problem with there being gaps?
 
For the real planking, a mistake or two is fixed using wood flour from the actual planking species mixed with PVA.  In this case, white PVA cures clear and not the amber of yellow, so if maybe being a tad darker is a problem, use white PVA.

It might help if you visited this link:
For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
 

Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal:
New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series!
Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale
Your Price: $29.99
Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale
Your Price: $49.99
 
All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model.
 
Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do.
 
A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it.  It also was a significant outlay from a treasury.  The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. 
I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them .   It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.
 
 
 

1) Are you flushing out dips between the moulds? 
2) Are you filling gaps between the planks of the first layer?
If it is the first, a yellow PVA glued piece of wood veneer that is then sanded to a smooth run would be a sure way to go.
If it is the second, why bother?  It will all be hidden by the outer planking layer.  I can't imagine that it is going to float, so what is the problem with there being gaps?
 
For the real planking, a mistake or two is fixed using wood flour from the actual planking species mixed with PVA.  In this case, white PVA cures clear and not the amber of yellow, so if maybe being a tad darker is a problem, use white PVA.

I am more than confident that what you say is true. 
 
In the lab, we had a rule on rinsing the soap off of just washed glassware. The first rinse removes 95%. The next rinse removes 95% of remaining 5%.  Each subsequent rinse does the same.  It will never be 100% removed.  Like we had to decide when we had done enough rinses, for precision on wood stock,  we need to decide when it is precise enough.  I would not be surprised if there was not a rule to the effect that the cost for each increment that increases precision: that much more,  has an inverse cost to the additional fraction towards absolute precision that it provides.  We need to decide for ourselves when close enough is good enough.  For me, a hand feed Byrnes machine is close enough.

Roger,
My question: how will you secure the wood stock to the constant feed?  I see a lip at the bottom as pushing it, but i suspect that the stock will want to cant and if the angle becomes a critical one, it will come flying back at you.
My bandsaw leaves an unsmooth surface on my stock.  I have to sand both sides. It takes several passes to get to spec.  Finding the sweet spot for bandsaw slice thickness is an ongoing challenge.
Thick enough that the final product is 220 smooth on both sides, but that not many extra passes at 80 grit are needed.  I flip and/or rotate my feed.  I do that as I get it thru the drum.  An auto feed I see as dropping over the back cliff. There is no way to do a proper flip/rotate. 
 
I use Best Test rubber cement to hold paper backed medium to my disk sander - double coat.  It holds well enough, is easy to peal off, and cleans just using my thumb.  The no skid backing on 10X Norton is chemically incompatible with rubber cement,  so big volume big box store stuff I cannot use.
 
I have a similar home made thickness sander.  It is a box and I made the mistake of enclosing the lower motor chamber - it becomes a right oven so I can't lock on and run for a long session.
I use cloth backed Klingspor  - long rolls - direct from the company.  But, I did not find the courage to try rubber cement for it.  I still used contact cement - double layer - it holds well enough - boy does it hold - I can use naphtha to clean it up, but it does not dissolve it, just denatures it and not all that quickly either.  I did break down and purchase a Byrnes machine.  The media is much easier to change. It does not overheat.  My old machine has clean media and is ready to go, but the Byrnes is so much easier that it staying in storage.
 
My suggestion - go with the Byrnes.
Alternative -  fix casters on your old units and pull it out into your shop floor and give the feed improvement experiment a pass.
 
Oh, the 12" disk sander will still be there.  I have a 10" on my old and retired 3 wheel Emco Meyer band saw, but I have never mounted it.  I also bought a disk that fits the arbor of my 10" tablesaw - an on sale thing - that makes it a disk sander - still in the box.  If my 5" Byrnes will not do it, the Harbor  Freight 4x36 belt sander will.

Roger,
My question: how will you secure the wood stock to the constant feed?  I see a lip at the bottom as pushing it, but i suspect that the stock will want to cant and if the angle becomes a critical one, it will come flying back at you.
My bandsaw leaves an unsmooth surface on my stock.  I have to sand both sides. It takes several passes to get to spec.  Finding the sweet spot for bandsaw slice thickness is an ongoing challenge.
Thick enough that the final product is 220 smooth on both sides, but that not many extra passes at 80 grit are needed.  I flip and/or rotate my feed.  I do that as I get it thru the drum.  An auto feed I see as dropping over the back cliff. There is no way to do a proper flip/rotate. 
 
I use Best Test rubber cement to hold paper backed medium to my disk sander - double coat.  It holds well enough, is easy to peal off, and cleans just using my thumb.  The no skid backing on 10X Norton is chemically incompatible with rubber cement,  so big volume big box store stuff I cannot use.
 
I have a similar home made thickness sander.  It is a box and I made the mistake of enclosing the lower motor chamber - it becomes a right oven so I can't lock on and run for a long session.
I use cloth backed Klingspor  - long rolls - direct from the company.  But, I did not find the courage to try rubber cement for it.  I still used contact cement - double layer - it holds well enough - boy does it hold - I can use naphtha to clean it up, but it does not dissolve it, just denatures it and not all that quickly either.  I did break down and purchase a Byrnes machine.  The media is much easier to change. It does not overheat.  My old machine has clean media and is ready to go, but the Byrnes is so much easier that it staying in storage.
 
My suggestion - go with the Byrnes.
Alternative -  fix casters on your old units and pull it out into your shop floor and give the feed improvement experiment a pass.
 
Oh, the 12" disk sander will still be there.  I have a 10" on my old and retired 3 wheel Emco Meyer band saw, but I have never mounted it.  I also bought a disk that fits the arbor of my 10" tablesaw - an on sale thing - that makes it a disk sander - still in the box.  If my 5" Byrnes will not do it, the Harbor  Freight 4x36 belt sander will.

1) Are you flushing out dips between the moulds? 
2) Are you filling gaps between the planks of the first layer?
If it is the first, a yellow PVA glued piece of wood veneer that is then sanded to a smooth run would be a sure way to go.
If it is the second, why bother?  It will all be hidden by the outer planking layer.  I can't imagine that it is going to float, so what is the problem with there being gaps?
 
For the real planking, a mistake or two is fixed using wood flour from the actual planking species mixed with PVA.  In this case, white PVA cures clear and not the amber of yellow, so if maybe being a tad darker is a problem, use white PVA.

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

Very true Eric
I recently spend time to hone my chisels. I especially focused on the strop until both surfaces were like mirrors. They are now so sharp that any casual contact with fingers will draw blood. However, I now see how a chisel should work, it should effortlessly cut the wood in any direction, with or across the grain. If it does not, it is not sharp enough. 
 

I bought poplar for a solid hull freighter, since the ship will be painted I am not concerned about the miss-coloring that may come with this type of wood. 

I doubt that it has any relevance for lower Florida,  but if I was back in central Kentucky, younger, and had the tools I have now, I would see about trying to accumulate a warehouse size supply of Apple billets.
 
Anthony,  That Castello is dear in both price and the vanishing prospect of obtaining more.  A thought - you might consider reserving it for making blocks and deck furniture - .
I suggest getting some Hard Maple to get practice on ripping.  It is as close as you are likely to come to being as hard as Castello,  you can get as much as you want and the cost is reasonable.  Get lots of practice using the Maple.  And who knows, you may come to like it.  Save the rare expensive wood for a magnum opus .

Mike, 
 
I have no problem at all with you disagreeing about this. 
You are offering an alternative to becoming a solo sawmill for Europe.   I have the hope that by waving the home sawmill red flag,  a similar alternative for North America will make an appearance and refute me. This is an often asked question, here.  I do not recall reading an easy answer to it.  I am expressing what I feel is a realistic view of what is involved with scratch POF - at least here in North America.  I totally support the ambition for scratch POF.  I wish the that the barrier into it was a low one.  I find the wiederholen Sie das , (or singing Kathlene over the ship's intercom) aspect of kits to be ....wearing.  
 
The whole solo sawmill option is really a distraction from our primary goal.   The advantages are an increase in the number of species of wood that can be used and that after several hulls, the investment in tools is recovered -  as long as you leave your man hours expended out of the equation. It also offers some comfort to those of us who are driven to be as self sufficient as is possible.  But, it is impossible to be compensated at an hourly rate that is commensurate with that for the necessary skill level to do this.  Including that factor would probably keep any recouping of expenditure impossible.  But, since the alternative use of that time would not likely be a money making activity, it probably should be excluded.
 
You have access to one of the first line species and in a form that is readily usable.  From some build logs  it seems that Pear is not difficult to source in Europe.  I trust that you appreciate your good fortune with that.  And also value those who do the work to mill it for you.  In North America, it is fast becoming a situation where it is rare to source any milled stock other than the totally awful Balsa or the merely terrible Basswood.  Its cousin Linden/Lime is about 100% better, but that is not really available here.  Pear in any form is difficult to find and the price is prohibitive.  

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance,  I would be greedy.  I would be very, very greedy.

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance,  I would be greedy.  I would be very, very greedy.