Jaager

If you can't find it anywhere else,  Amazon   200ml ~ $20    65ml ~ $14  It is also great at protecting  tools from rust.
 
Re: incandescent -  have heat lamp bulbs been proscribed also?

My theory:
country sawmills sell for less - given retail markup - maybe half.
The rough - pre planed lumber is thicker and if you band saw
resaw, the yield can be greater.
The downside is that if it is an active concern, the stock is green.
If it is a relaxed operation, there may be old air dried stock in ricks.
 
Edensaw does have Madrone and Yellow Cedar  but > $10/BF
It does look like you can get Hard Maple for about what I can
and it is a reasonable substitute for Boxwood - for everything but
carving. - i.e. timbers, planking, beams, knees

Jim,
given where you are,  I wonder if you can access a local
country sawmill and find a supply of two species from
your region that have a more suitable grain, are both closed pore,
low contrast, tight grained and between the two have a color
contrast:
Madrone
Yellow Cedar
 
Though seriously expensive for we easterners, it could be
$5 /BF or less for you.

Wood flour of the planking species mixed with PVA ( Titebond II for me).

The Byrnes will work 6 inch stock.  The medium mounts as sheets.
The clamps come shown as two 3 inch pieces.  This allows one to be
replaced - leaving the other alone - if two 3 inch sheets are used.
Standard sandpaper sheets look like they would fit - but their duration of use
may not be practical.   There are cloth backed media - as continuous rolls -
cut to fit for length and they come as 3", 4", 6"  widths -  variety of grits -
Norton and Klingspor are two.  I get Klingspor from my local WoodCraft,
but  i do not see this on the chain website 
It holds up well and is essentially the same as what makes up the sleeves.
 
In my view, the Micromark is more of a toy when compared to the Byrnes.
 
220 grit may be as fine as should be finished for working stock - wood pore
blockage and reduced PVA bonding may be a side effect of a finer finish.

The Byrnes will work 6 inch stock.  The medium mounts as sheets.
The clamps come shown as two 3 inch pieces.  This allows one to be
replaced - leaving the other alone - if two 3 inch sheets are used.
Standard sandpaper sheets look like they would fit - but their duration of use
may not be practical.   There are cloth backed media - as continuous rolls -
cut to fit for length and they come as 3", 4", 6"  widths -  variety of grits -
Norton and Klingspor are two.  I get Klingspor from my local WoodCraft,
but  i do not see this on the chain website 
It holds up well and is essentially the same as what makes up the sleeves.
 
In my view, the Micromark is more of a toy when compared to the Byrnes.
 
220 grit may be as fine as should be finished for working stock - wood pore
blockage and reduced PVA bonding may be a side effect of a finer finish.

The Byrnes will work 6 inch stock.  The medium mounts as sheets.
The clamps come shown as two 3 inch pieces.  This allows one to be
replaced - leaving the other alone - if two 3 inch sheets are used.
Standard sandpaper sheets look like they would fit - but their duration of use
may not be practical.   There are cloth backed media - as continuous rolls -
cut to fit for length and they come as 3", 4", 6"  widths -  variety of grits -
Norton and Klingspor are two.  I get Klingspor from my local WoodCraft,
but  i do not see this on the chain website 
It holds up well and is essentially the same as what makes up the sleeves.
 
In my view, the Micromark is more of a toy when compared to the Byrnes.
 
220 grit may be as fine as should be finished for working stock - wood pore
blockage and reduced PVA bonding may be a side effect of a finer finish.

For me: the first fix is to remove the set scars from the bandsaw blade on
both surfaces. 
Mine is an under powered 3 wheel bandsaw and my skill in resawing could be better.
Two inch hardwood - especiaaly Hard Maple - strains the 3/4 HP motor and 
dulls the blade more quickly than I like.
My sander is home made using plans from NRG  from years ago - the drum is 11 inches
and the circumference is 8.5 inches - for standard sanding sheets - now I would make it
12 inches - so that I could fit 3 grits of 4 inch cloth backed sanding medium  Klingspor  80/150/220
For the thickness sander =
The goal is to start with a stock thickness that allows a clean
220 finish on both sides - without having to waste much wood to get the
target thickness.
I flip and rotate end to end.  This is using 80 grit.
When I have a clean surface, i sand one side down to 220 and use it as the
table contact.
The other side gets 80 grit passes - with end to end rotation until close to target 
then finish to final with 220.

Two of the variables
width of the piece
grit of the sanding medium

For me: the first fix is to remove the set scars from the bandsaw blade on
both surfaces. 
Mine is an under powered 3 wheel bandsaw and my skill in resawing could be better.
Two inch hardwood - especiaaly Hard Maple - strains the 3/4 HP motor and 
dulls the blade more quickly than I like.
My sander is home made using plans from NRG  from years ago - the drum is 11 inches
and the circumference is 8.5 inches - for standard sanding sheets - now I would make it
12 inches - so that I could fit 3 grits of 4 inch cloth backed sanding medium  Klingspor  80/150/220
For the thickness sander =
The goal is to start with a stock thickness that allows a clean
220 finish on both sides - without having to waste much wood to get the
target thickness.
I flip and rotate end to end.  This is using 80 grit.
When I have a clean surface, i sand one side down to 220 and use it as the
table contact.
The other side gets 80 grit passes - with end to end rotation until close to target 
then finish to final with 220.

For me: the first fix is to remove the set scars from the bandsaw blade on
both surfaces. 
Mine is an under powered 3 wheel bandsaw and my skill in resawing could be better.
Two inch hardwood - especiaaly Hard Maple - strains the 3/4 HP motor and 
dulls the blade more quickly than I like.
My sander is home made using plans from NRG  from years ago - the drum is 11 inches
and the circumference is 8.5 inches - for standard sanding sheets - now I would make it
12 inches - so that I could fit 3 grits of 4 inch cloth backed sanding medium  Klingspor  80/150/220
For the thickness sander =
The goal is to start with a stock thickness that allows a clean
220 finish on both sides - without having to waste much wood to get the
target thickness.
I flip and rotate end to end.  This is using 80 grit.
When I have a clean surface, i sand one side down to 220 and use it as the
table contact.
The other side gets 80 grit passes - with end to end rotation until close to target 
then finish to final with 220.

Take a look at PaintShop Pro - it is less than $50 US.  You can do all this using a computer.
I use a different draw/paint program (Painter ) but it is way more feature rich in paint
and graphic alteration - all that is needed are basic functions: line draw, scale, rotate,
layers,  a polygonal selector tool, paint bucket fill. - lots of layers.  Painter is too expensive for just this - still, it will crash if I do too much
in a session.  As i said, you will not be designing Endeavor, just reproducing it. CAD is by
definition about design.  Crisp lines and perfect curves are nice, but unnecessary to develop
frame patterns. 
I have done it using the same method as you are intending.  The computer is a faster and
more accurate tool in my hands.  You can also color the frame lines - it is easier to know which
line to sand to when shaping and beveling the frames.  You also only have to do half the frame - Copy - Flip Horizontal - line it up and you have a precise mirror and the full frame.
 
The key preliminary steps:
1) Use a canvas/document size that your printer will not "adjust" when printing
for me =  2197 x 1701 pixels  8 1/2 x 11   2796 x 1701 pixels  8 1/2 x 14  and deselect  the "Fit to borders" option.
2) Determine how much scale distortion your scanner produces   - I have to scale up by 102.5% to get identity with the original.
3) Get a clear plastic 15 cm ruler to scan and print out to make sure the print out is accurate.  (I find metric easier to calculate a scale factor.)
4) I model at 1:60,  but work in the computer at 1:48.  The PrintableRuler site has a 1:48 ruler that is useful.
     -- I adjusted its scale in Painter until a printout of it matched my 1/4 inch architect's triangle ruler.
5)  For the ruler and ship plans in the paint program - the magic wand tool is your friend.  With tolerance ~100% and noncontinuous options , when the white background
      of a scan is selected and Cut - just the lines are on the layer - otherwise transparent.
6)  The thinnest line I can get in Painter is 1 pixel wide.  I did use TurboCAD 18 to make a thinner line to import for a base center line and baseline to line everything up.
7)  Scanning - 200x200 pixels is usually sufficient  - Your monitor is probably fixed at 72 pixels so scans with more pixel density just makes for larger files that you have to scale down.  ( Unless the source is a small sized graphic and has poor resolution.
 
Now you can scan in plans - from the book - or from Underhill and plot your points.   Were I to use the book plans, since the Profile and Waterlines cross a seam, I would buy a 2nd used copy of the book and remove the pages to get a flat scan.  And with Underhill - if your copy is like the Brig 12 gun 1840 is the faded blueprint that I scanner in a couple of weeks ago, a color scan instead B/W was necessary.  Removing the background is more complicated.

Thru the 17 C. the shape of the key frame stations was defined using a formula based on  the arc.  For small craft at least -  this became a process 
= whole moulding.   I am not sure how far into the 18 C this continued for ships.  The shape produced is distinctive and to my eye, Endeavor does
not show those characteristics - so even if an equation for the arc system could be found, it is unlikely to apply to Endeavor.  Her shape at mid ship
fairly close to being a rectangle - with rounded lower corners.  It is probably efficient for maximizing cargo capacity - when speed is not  at a premium.
 
Since the shape is already defined - ( not doing a new design ) -  the points of the curve are predetermined - Even if the key Station curves are defined by 
some formula, the intermediate bends that transition between them do not.  I had guessed for a long time that a spline would connect the
points with the least introduction of artifact.  The curves were probably originally drawn at the Stations using actual wooden splines.  The traditional
method for lofting a POF model involves two or three curves for each paired frame (bend). There are as you say about 50 bends in the average ship -
or about 150 complex curves with essentially no two being identical. If you do the final shaping  on a glued up pair then you are down to 100 curves. 
This makes the published Station curves as being of no help for bend shaping. By using a program  with layers the bends can be stacked and outlaying
points be seen and corrected.  With the station lines are part of the data, they can be used as a guide to see where errors are being introduced.
( The Stations are generally every other bend in a small ship but are often every third or fourth in the middle of a larger ships and I have seen as many as eight .)
 
With enough points you can get by using a straight line connect the points tool.  Any slight faceted effect on the frame pattern will not survive the sanding anyway. 
Use a drawing program with the ability to handle a lot of layers and large files...   Scan in the Body plan, Profile, Waterlines, and Buttock lines.  Use them as a
background layer to define the points.  This removes a source of error when the points are measured and transferred.

Two of the variables
width of the piece
grit of the sanding medium

Two of the variables
width of the piece
grit of the sanding medium

Two of the variables
width of the piece
grit of the sanding medium

Two of the variables
width of the piece
grit of the sanding medium

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

You could use it for that,  if it is Yellow Poplar that is the subject here.
It is closed pore and has a tight grain.  It is not brittle or fuzzy.
It is an excellent choice for solid and lift style hulls.  The mark
against it for POF framing is that it is light weight and for smaller
vessels below 1:48 in scale, I would be worried about the strength
of the frame. 
 
You offer no location information.  If you are eastern US,  check the
cost for Hard Maple.  It should be about $5 /bf.  It approaches what
passes for Boxwood these days in hardness and is much stronger than Yellow Poplar.
It will produce much more wear on saw blades however,  but the feel of working it
in these small scales, is I find, more satisfying.

For POB, you might use it for the first layer of planking with a two layer method.
or for the fill/backing material between molds ("bulkheads") if you opt for one layer
of planking on a solid support method.

It is a relatively soft hardwood ; less than Black Cherry, but about 50% harder than Yellow Poplar.
It should work fairly easily.
The negatives are a course grain and open pores.  It does not scale well.  
If you use it for hidden components, it should do OK. 
If it is of a surface that is painted, an additional step to fill the pores (Plaster 0f Paris) would probably be needed.
Clear finished - the grain could be a distraction.
For frames on a fully planked hull, it should work and if you get a deal, save you money -
framing is probably the most timber intensive part and has the most waste.
Being softer, it will be easier to remove too much, too fast, so a light touch when shaping.