Jaager

If you do as much as possible in CAD and save that in PNG or 100% JPEG in as many different parts as you need,
the files when opened and compiled as layers in a drawing program like PaintShop Pro or Gimp will do as you wish.
To remove the white background, select it with the wand tool and Cut the selection.  Duplicate the layer before you do
this and work on the copy - in case.  Use CAD as a preliminary tool rather than the main one.

Does the tool have a fan that exhausts air from the port?
The manufacturer may have a site and post an IPL for the tool.
You could try to find a disposable bag for a vac cleaner that is small enough and 
has a opening close to the port in size and use a pipe clamp or a cable tie to hold it on.

CAD - Computer Aided Design -  I have tended to focus on the design factor after not being able to find a way to
extract frame timber outlines after inputting Waterlines - and Buttock lines.  I think that this would be possible but
time costly using a vertex or NURBS modeling program.  My Ultimate is to use A Deane instructions and recreate
his Royal Charles ~ 1673.  CAD seems to be the way to do that. But I suspect that I would be starting too late to be able to finish.
 
But,  otherwise, I am using existing plans.  Vessels that have already been designed - a long time ago.  I find a drawing
program to be more useful.  I have found a way to avoid having to loft individual frames to do POF.  A drawing program
gets me there and I only use a small fraction of the program tools.  The important part is that it allow large files with a
ton of layers and not crash.  You do not really need to learn more that a limited number of functions.  The bulk of the tools
deal with painting and photo manipulation and color distortion - none of which are relevant to our needs.

If you do as much as possible in CAD and save that in PNG or 100% JPEG in as many different parts as you need,
the files when opened and compiled as layers in a drawing program like PaintShop Pro or Gimp will do as you wish.
To remove the white background, select it with the wand tool and Cut the selection.  Duplicate the layer before you do
this and work on the copy - in case.  Use CAD as a preliminary tool rather than the main one.

I only use mine for model work also.  I just have to shape frames and cut bevels in
fairly thick stock.  Even at 1:60 Commerce de Marseille has timbers that are 1/4" thick
and sanding a station of them is over 2 inches of Hard Maple.  That needs an
adequate motor.  60 grit paper does not take too long to remove the bulk.  When I
do the sanding, I tend to go in batches, so a session can go for a couple of hours,
which does heat a motor.

I only use mine for model work also.  I just have to shape frames and cut bevels in
fairly thick stock.  Even at 1:60 Commerce de Marseille has timbers that are 1/4" thick
and sanding a station of them is over 2 inches of Hard Maple.  That needs an
adequate motor.  60 grit paper does not take too long to remove the bulk.  When I
do the sanding, I tend to go in batches, so a session can go for a couple of hours,
which does heat a motor.

I would think that the designed unit that is the subject of this thread :
is under powered.  could over heat  unless better ventilation is allowed.
does not offer a large enough surface for sanding - especially for changing bevels on frames.
 
I have built two drum sanding tables.
The spindle sanders I checked use drum with sleeve sanding media.
I dislike being tied to using disposable media that is expensive and has
limited sources. When I found sleeveless drums at Peachtree that use
9 x 11 sheet sandpaper I built to use them.  The variety od sizes is good.
At one end is a 3" dia. that is 6 inches high and the other is 1/2" dia that
is 3 inches high.  To get down to 1/2" - the rubber layer making it 3/4" is
removed.
 
The first unit had a 1/20 HP motor 1700 rpm but the shaft is 5/16".
All but the two smallest drums have 1/2" sockets.  Then the two small drums
had 1/4" sockets.  Now, they seem to have changed manufacturers and the two
small ones now also have 1/2" sockets.  I had to drill and turn adapters from
cold rolled steel rod.  That is messy and requires an involved cleanup to remove
the steel turnings from the lathe.
The 1/20 HP motor did not have enough power to mount the 6 inch drum and was weak
in removal with the others.
I thought I might get the motor that Jim Byrnes uses for his sander but it turns out to be a 
3500 rpm motor pullyed down to 1700 rpm.  I did learn about two pole motors from the exercise.
 
I bought a 1/3 hp 1700 rpm motor from Grainger that has a closed fan internal cooling component
and ball bearing mounts for the shaft.  Good bearings and ventilation for cooling is important.
It is also best to develop a design that keeps saw dust out of the motor - which is a challenge when
the motor is under the drum.  The motor has a 1/2 shaft so all of the drums will mount directly ti it.
The motor is two pole, so I wired it to a drum switch so that the drums can rotate CW or CCW.
With a 1/2" shaft, I also mount burr cutters and micro planers - but with a threaded mount , reverse
rotation does not work so well.  The commercial spindle sanders that I have looked at appear to have
a proprietary method to mount their drums that limits their versatility.  The belt sanding attachment 
on the Rigid model looked interesting, but when Harbor Freight had a stand alone 4 x 36 unit on sale
for $60, I calculated it was easier and cheaper than trying to adapt that ability to my unit.

I would think that the designed unit that is the subject of this thread :
is under powered.  could over heat  unless better ventilation is allowed.
does not offer a large enough surface for sanding - especially for changing bevels on frames.
 
I have built two drum sanding tables.
The spindle sanders I checked use drum with sleeve sanding media.
I dislike being tied to using disposable media that is expensive and has
limited sources. When I found sleeveless drums at Peachtree that use
9 x 11 sheet sandpaper I built to use them.  The variety od sizes is good.
At one end is a 3" dia. that is 6 inches high and the other is 1/2" dia that
is 3 inches high.  To get down to 1/2" - the rubber layer making it 3/4" is
removed.
 
The first unit had a 1/20 HP motor 1700 rpm but the shaft is 5/16".
All but the two smallest drums have 1/2" sockets.  Then the two small drums
had 1/4" sockets.  Now, they seem to have changed manufacturers and the two
small ones now also have 1/2" sockets.  I had to drill and turn adapters from
cold rolled steel rod.  That is messy and requires an involved cleanup to remove
the steel turnings from the lathe.
The 1/20 HP motor did not have enough power to mount the 6 inch drum and was weak
in removal with the others.
I thought I might get the motor that Jim Byrnes uses for his sander but it turns out to be a 
3500 rpm motor pullyed down to 1700 rpm.  I did learn about two pole motors from the exercise.
 
I bought a 1/3 hp 1700 rpm motor from Grainger that has a closed fan internal cooling component
and ball bearing mounts for the shaft.  Good bearings and ventilation for cooling is important.
It is also best to develop a design that keeps saw dust out of the motor - which is a challenge when
the motor is under the drum.  The motor has a 1/2 shaft so all of the drums will mount directly ti it.
The motor is two pole, so I wired it to a drum switch so that the drums can rotate CW or CCW.
With a 1/2" shaft, I also mount burr cutters and micro planers - but with a threaded mount , reverse
rotation does not work so well.  The commercial spindle sanders that I have looked at appear to have
a proprietary method to mount their drums that limits their versatility.  The belt sanding attachment 
on the Rigid model looked interesting, but when Harbor Freight had a stand alone 4 x 36 unit on sale
for $60, I calculated it was easier and cheaper than trying to adapt that ability to my unit.

Does the tool have a fan that exhausts air from the port?
The manufacturer may have a site and post an IPL for the tool.
You could try to find a disposable bag for a vac cleaner that is small enough and 
has a opening close to the port in size and use a pipe clamp or a cable tie to hold it on.

If you are building in a style that requires a dead flat surface - a piece of thick safety glass with beveled edges
makes for a useful surface.  I also cover my plywood surfaces with a layer to two of white butcher paper.  Helps with
light and is handy to do calculations on.

If you are building in a style that requires a dead flat surface - a piece of thick safety glass with beveled edges
makes for a useful surface.  I also cover my plywood surfaces with a layer to two of white butcher paper.  Helps with
light and is handy to do calculations on.

If you are building in a style that requires a dead flat surface - a piece of thick safety glass with beveled edges
makes for a useful surface.  I also cover my plywood surfaces with a layer to two of white butcher paper.  Helps with
light and is handy to do calculations on.

I introduced myself to one property of sulfuric acid inadvertently.  It is intensely hygroscopic.
That is - it readily combines with water.  It takes a lot of energy to remove the water, so
when it does combine with water it gives back that energy as heat.  On your skin, it feels like
a jet of live steam has hit it.  Adding water to acid, the water instantly turns to steam and blows
out of the liquid - taking some of the liquid with it.   I have never added water to acid, but I 
did discover that reagent sulfuric acid is thick and does not pour like water.  It tends to come back
down the surface of the container it is poured from.  Pouring it from a beaker with your thumb on
the bottom of the beaker is really not a good way to do it.

There was one step that did not seem to be presented:
Any sharpening would occur due to the acid dissolving an even layer 
of iron on the file.  So the acid must have access to the surface of the metal.
Any wax, grease, or oil on the surface could occlude the water from the metal.
A pre-cleaning with detergent, water rinse and mineral spirit tx would give a fresh
iron surface.
 
The mineral acids discussed can be potentially dangerous and a problem to discard.
I am wondering ( as a denken experiment ) if electrolysis would not be a safer method?
The file could be wired as the donor and a copper rod to accept.  I can't recall ever 
seeing iron being used to plate another metal, but it should behave as any other metal.
The slightly salty water medium should be no problem to discard.  I have not looked it up,
but I think that since Fe has a positive charge, the copper rod should get the negative charge.

There was one step that did not seem to be presented:
Any sharpening would occur due to the acid dissolving an even layer 
of iron on the file.  So the acid must have access to the surface of the metal.
Any wax, grease, or oil on the surface could occlude the water from the metal.
A pre-cleaning with detergent, water rinse and mineral spirit tx would give a fresh
iron surface.
 
The mineral acids discussed can be potentially dangerous and a problem to discard.
I am wondering ( as a denken experiment ) if electrolysis would not be a safer method?
The file could be wired as the donor and a copper rod to accept.  I can't recall ever 
seeing iron being used to plate another metal, but it should behave as any other metal.
The slightly salty water medium should be no problem to discard.  I have not looked it up,
but I think that since Fe has a positive charge, the copper rod should get the negative charge.

There was one step that did not seem to be presented:
Any sharpening would occur due to the acid dissolving an even layer 
of iron on the file.  So the acid must have access to the surface of the metal.
Any wax, grease, or oil on the surface could occlude the water from the metal.
A pre-cleaning with detergent, water rinse and mineral spirit tx would give a fresh
iron surface.
 
The mineral acids discussed can be potentially dangerous and a problem to discard.
I am wondering ( as a denken experiment ) if electrolysis would not be a safer method?
The file could be wired as the donor and a copper rod to accept.  I can't recall ever 
seeing iron being used to plate another metal, but it should behave as any other metal.
The slightly salty water medium should be no problem to discard.  I have not looked it up,
but I think that since Fe has a positive charge, the copper rod should get the negative charge.

The ocean being unforgiving - rules were developed for wooden ship construction.  Very little if anything was
left up to chance.
 
from: American Shipmasters' Assocciation - "Record"  a set of rules for the insurance companies.
also called the "American Lloyd's".  My guess is that much if not all was from Lloyd's of London rules.
These rules were probably developed " on the job"  from about 1550 on.
 
Deck plank
.....No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a strake intervenes
the space of one beam will be allowed). No butts should meet on the same beam, unless there be three strakes between them.
 
These are minimum standards. Quality yards may have had four strakes.  Using long planks would help.

The ocean being unforgiving - rules were developed for wooden ship construction.  Very little if anything was
left up to chance.
 
from: American Shipmasters' Assocciation - "Record"  a set of rules for the insurance companies.
also called the "American Lloyd's".  My guess is that much if not all was from Lloyd's of London rules.
These rules were probably developed " on the job"  from about 1550 on.
 
Deck plank
.....No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a strake intervenes
the space of one beam will be allowed). No butts should meet on the same beam, unless there be three strakes between them.
 
These are minimum standards. Quality yards may have had four strakes.  Using long planks would help.

A ship with planks laid in your pattern would probably never find anyone willing to insure it.
Gunther is correct about the butt shift and as evidenced by the trunnel locations - there are not
near enough deck beams. 
You could rip the deck up, or , use it as subflooring and add a top layer of planking using as thin a veneer as can be had to show. 
I would go for as little contrast as possible. 
I have bamboo skewers that are very hard, difficult to draw, stand up to force, but are significantly darker than Maple.
I have others that are softer, and are close to Maple in color, easy to draw, but want to split, and snap easily if the hole is not large enough.
At least in the time between 1815 and 1860 in the US, the planks could be 40 feet long in scale.

How far are you with HMS Beagle?
Since there are no NMM plans specific to Beagle - except the frame construction sheet,
I am thinking that the kit is for the 10 gun brig class - taken from Cherokee - Rolla - or another sister.
 
In the refit for the 1831 voyage - the deck heights were changed - the stern altered - a mizzen mast added -
AND - if you look at Marquardt, the frame diagram - while all other station timbers were 9" and the space 4" -
in section 0 - B  - the timbers are 10" and the space 6".  On an original build, this would make no sense.
If, however, they wanted to lengthen the ship for the voyage, placing a new section amidships would be the way.
I am thinking that Marquardt fit 3 is 68" longer than the kit hull.  If you have not started, you can patch in an additional
mold in the 0 space - just duplicate the dead flat mold.  The deck gear should fit better.  If you raise the bulwarks and decks ,
you could mimic the 1831 version by doing it the way the ship yard did.

How far are you with HMS Beagle?
Since there are no NMM plans specific to Beagle - except the frame construction sheet,
I am thinking that the kit is for the 10 gun brig class - taken from Cherokee - Rolla - or another sister.
 
In the refit for the 1831 voyage - the deck heights were changed - the stern altered - a mizzen mast added -
AND - if you look at Marquardt, the frame diagram - while all other station timbers were 9" and the space 4" -
in section 0 - B  - the timbers are 10" and the space 6".  On an original build, this would make no sense.
If, however, they wanted to lengthen the ship for the voyage, placing a new section amidships would be the way.
I am thinking that Marquardt fit 3 is 68" longer than the kit hull.  If you have not started, you can patch in an additional
mold in the 0 space - just duplicate the dead flat mold.  The deck gear should fit better.  If you raise the bulwarks and decks ,
you could mimic the 1831 version by doing it the way the ship yard did.

How far are you with HMS Beagle?
Since there are no NMM plans specific to Beagle - except the frame construction sheet,
I am thinking that the kit is for the 10 gun brig class - taken from Cherokee - Rolla - or another sister.
 
In the refit for the 1831 voyage - the deck heights were changed - the stern altered - a mizzen mast added -
AND - if you look at Marquardt, the frame diagram - while all other station timbers were 9" and the space 4" -
in section 0 - B  - the timbers are 10" and the space 6".  On an original build, this would make no sense.
If, however, they wanted to lengthen the ship for the voyage, placing a new section amidships would be the way.
I am thinking that Marquardt fit 3 is 68" longer than the kit hull.  If you have not started, you can patch in an additional
mold in the 0 space - just duplicate the dead flat mold.  The deck gear should fit better.  If you raise the bulwarks and decks ,
you could mimic the 1831 version by doing it the way the ship yard did.

How far are you with HMS Beagle?
Since there are no NMM plans specific to Beagle - except the frame construction sheet,
I am thinking that the kit is for the 10 gun brig class - taken from Cherokee - Rolla - or another sister.
 
In the refit for the 1831 voyage - the deck heights were changed - the stern altered - a mizzen mast added -
AND - if you look at Marquardt, the frame diagram - while all other station timbers were 9" and the space 4" -
in section 0 - B  - the timbers are 10" and the space 6".  On an original build, this would make no sense.
If, however, they wanted to lengthen the ship for the voyage, placing a new section amidships would be the way.
I am thinking that Marquardt fit 3 is 68" longer than the kit hull.  If you have not started, you can patch in an additional
mold in the 0 space - just duplicate the dead flat mold.  The deck gear should fit better.  If you raise the bulwarks and decks ,
you could mimic the 1831 version by doing it the way the ship yard did.

Looking up what this is:  a 20th C. steel warship at a large scale for this type of vessel  -
 
A warship has been the most complicated example of technology of its culture for at least 500 years.
It incorporates just about everything the technology can build.. All other types of plastic model subjects would rate as a
sub-assembly on a warship.
 
What you are doing is all about the detail. You pretty much need to be obsessed and
inspired to do it correctly. Unless you are doing this for pay, you don't need to
endure the agony if you are not driven to do it. 
 
You could work different skills and try a wooden cutter or pilot schooner and see if the inspiration comes back later.

The ocean being unforgiving - rules were developed for wooden ship construction.  Very little if anything was
left up to chance.
 
from: American Shipmasters' Assocciation - "Record"  a set of rules for the insurance companies.
also called the "American Lloyd's".  My guess is that much if not all was from Lloyd's of London rules.
These rules were probably developed " on the job"  from about 1550 on.
 
Deck plank
.....No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a strake intervenes
the space of one beam will be allowed). No butts should meet on the same beam, unless there be three strakes between them.
 
These are minimum standards. Quality yards may have had four strakes.  Using long planks would help.