Jaager

Just some random comments:
 
If you think the 64 gun hull is large, you should try the 118 gun Commerce de Marseille?  Even at 1:60 it is a contest for who will get the work room!
 
You are very fortunate in being able to source Sorbus torminalis.  The wood looks excellent,
 
I have tried many tools in a search for a way to shape the inside of the framing. 
The angle grinder that you show is one that works fairly well for me.
I wish I could find a slim electric grinder that is 45/120 degrees  as it would make getting inside easier - but I only find compressed air tools with that feature..
 
The one that I find to be more useful is this one:
https://www.kaleas.de/en/modeling-tinker/minitool/140/minitool-right-angle-grinder
The disk that  comes with it is a bit wide.  There is a chuck accessory that allows for disks with smaller diameters.  The problem is that it extends the cutting surface out from the motor.  The motor itself is about the size of my hand, so if I can get my hand inside, I can get the grinder inside.
 
I do not know the metric equivalents  but I am quite pleased to have a drum sander to shape the frames.
A quality 1/3 HP TEFC motor with a 1/2 inch shaft and ~1700 rpm is key .  To mount it so that the shaft is vertical, all that is needed is a firm base with big rubber sound/vibration absorbing feet and a sort of Erector Set type steel angle pieces with holes for threaded bolts.  
 
A box or table is not needed.  Almost nothing on a frame is 90 degrees, so a table just gets in the way.  
I have two problems with commercial oscillating spindle sanders: 
1) The drum mounts are usually proprietary - you can only use their drums
2)  The mounts are not a simple 1/2 inch rod.  With a simple 1/2 inch rod, other things can be mounted - a chuck that can hold burrs and cutters - any other cutting tool that has a 1/2 inch mount,  buffing pads, grinding wheels.
 
It is easy to get drums with a variety of diameters that will fit directly on a 1/2 inch shaft.  I prefer sleeveless drums,  It is easy to replace the cutting material using sandpaper sheets.  I worry about the tightening to secure a sanding sleeve to a rubber drum getting the drum out of round.
I also have a drum that is 3 inches diameter and 6 inches tall.  The extra height is useful for large frames.
 
TEFC - the drums generate much sawdust.  An enclosed motor with its own cooling fan protects the motor.  I also have a large piece of cardboard with a 1/2" hole in its center sitting on the motor where the shaft comes out - It directs the sawdust away from the motor.
 
It is important to have a lot of air flow around the motor.  If used for very long, it gets hot.
 
My motor is CW/CCW.  I wired a drum switch so that the rotation can be reversed at will.  I had to have a tech person at the motor manufacturer email me the wiring diagram - It is a lot more complicated than connecting 3 wires.

I may totally misunderstand the situation, but my understanding is that a 3 jaw chuck is for round stock and as such a self centering action makes sense.
A 4 jaw chuck is for irregular stock.  It would be pure luck for 4 sided stock to be absolutely square.  It is logical for each of the jaws to be independent.
Round is almost always symmetrical.  It takes serious effort to make it anything else.  Four or more sided stock is almost always the opposite as far as having  symmetry.

Just some random comments:
 
If you think the 64 gun hull is large, you should try the 118 gun Commerce de Marseille?  Even at 1:60 it is a contest for who will get the work room!
 
You are very fortunate in being able to source Sorbus torminalis.  The wood looks excellent,
 
I have tried many tools in a search for a way to shape the inside of the framing. 
The angle grinder that you show is one that works fairly well for me.
I wish I could find a slim electric grinder that is 45/120 degrees  as it would make getting inside easier - but I only find compressed air tools with that feature..
 
The one that I find to be more useful is this one:
https://www.kaleas.de/en/modeling-tinker/minitool/140/minitool-right-angle-grinder
The disk that  comes with it is a bit wide.  There is a chuck accessory that allows for disks with smaller diameters.  The problem is that it extends the cutting surface out from the motor.  The motor itself is about the size of my hand, so if I can get my hand inside, I can get the grinder inside.
 
I do not know the metric equivalents  but I am quite pleased to have a drum sander to shape the frames.
A quality 1/3 HP TEFC motor with a 1/2 inch shaft and ~1700 rpm is key .  To mount it so that the shaft is vertical, all that is needed is a firm base with big rubber sound/vibration absorbing feet and a sort of Erector Set type steel angle pieces with holes for threaded bolts.  
 
A box or table is not needed.  Almost nothing on a frame is 90 degrees, so a table just gets in the way.  
I have two problems with commercial oscillating spindle sanders: 
1) The drum mounts are usually proprietary - you can only use their drums
2)  The mounts are not a simple 1/2 inch rod.  With a simple 1/2 inch rod, other things can be mounted - a chuck that can hold burrs and cutters - any other cutting tool that has a 1/2 inch mount,  buffing pads, grinding wheels.
 
It is easy to get drums with a variety of diameters that will fit directly on a 1/2 inch shaft.  I prefer sleeveless drums,  It is easy to replace the cutting material using sandpaper sheets.  I worry about the tightening to secure a sanding sleeve to a rubber drum getting the drum out of round.
I also have a drum that is 3 inches diameter and 6 inches tall.  The extra height is useful for large frames.
 
TEFC - the drums generate much sawdust.  An enclosed motor with its own cooling fan protects the motor.  I also have a large piece of cardboard with a 1/2" hole in its center sitting on the motor where the shaft comes out - It directs the sawdust away from the motor.
 
It is important to have a lot of air flow around the motor.  If used for very long, it gets hot.
 
My motor is CW/CCW.  I wired a drum switch so that the rotation can be reversed at will.  I had to have a tech person at the motor manufacturer email me the wiring diagram - It is a lot more complicated than connecting 3 wires.

Just some random comments:
 
If you think the 64 gun hull is large, you should try the 118 gun Commerce de Marseille?  Even at 1:60 it is a contest for who will get the work room!
 
You are very fortunate in being able to source Sorbus torminalis.  The wood looks excellent,
 
I have tried many tools in a search for a way to shape the inside of the framing. 
The angle grinder that you show is one that works fairly well for me.
I wish I could find a slim electric grinder that is 45/120 degrees  as it would make getting inside easier - but I only find compressed air tools with that feature..
 
The one that I find to be more useful is this one:
https://www.kaleas.de/en/modeling-tinker/minitool/140/minitool-right-angle-grinder
The disk that  comes with it is a bit wide.  There is a chuck accessory that allows for disks with smaller diameters.  The problem is that it extends the cutting surface out from the motor.  The motor itself is about the size of my hand, so if I can get my hand inside, I can get the grinder inside.
 
I do not know the metric equivalents  but I am quite pleased to have a drum sander to shape the frames.
A quality 1/3 HP TEFC motor with a 1/2 inch shaft and ~1700 rpm is key .  To mount it so that the shaft is vertical, all that is needed is a firm base with big rubber sound/vibration absorbing feet and a sort of Erector Set type steel angle pieces with holes for threaded bolts.  
 
A box or table is not needed.  Almost nothing on a frame is 90 degrees, so a table just gets in the way.  
I have two problems with commercial oscillating spindle sanders: 
1) The drum mounts are usually proprietary - you can only use their drums
2)  The mounts are not a simple 1/2 inch rod.  With a simple 1/2 inch rod, other things can be mounted - a chuck that can hold burrs and cutters - any other cutting tool that has a 1/2 inch mount,  buffing pads, grinding wheels.
 
It is easy to get drums with a variety of diameters that will fit directly on a 1/2 inch shaft.  I prefer sleeveless drums,  It is easy to replace the cutting material using sandpaper sheets.  I worry about the tightening to secure a sanding sleeve to a rubber drum getting the drum out of round.
I also have a drum that is 3 inches diameter and 6 inches tall.  The extra height is useful for large frames.
 
TEFC - the drums generate much sawdust.  An enclosed motor with its own cooling fan protects the motor.  I also have a large piece of cardboard with a 1/2" hole in its center sitting on the motor where the shaft comes out - It directs the sawdust away from the motor.
 
It is important to have a lot of air flow around the motor.  If used for very long, it gets hot.
 
My motor is CW/CCW.  I wired a drum switch so that the rotation can be reversed at will.  I had to have a tech person at the motor manufacturer email me the wiring diagram - It is a lot more complicated than connecting 3 wires.

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm.  I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.
 
 

Looking for dry pigment - Amazon has Mica dry pigments advertised as being designed for use in epoxy.

Is the clear epoxy in an organic solvent?
If so, it may be possible that you could buy a small tube of artist's oil based pigment - a quality fine pigment brand - of the color or colors you favor - and mix your own compatible top coat(s).
Epoxy is two part?  Not sure which of the two would get the pigment - I would guess the thinnest one?

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm.  I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.
 
 

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm.  I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.
 
 

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm.  I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.
 
 

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm.  I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.
 
 

I would suggest that rather than pruning those threads, just close them with the reason being: "too many posts in this thread were infringing copyright, and it would take too long for admin/mods to go through the thread and delete them. 150,000 posts in total across multiple threads. Please refrain from posting copyrighted images in the future". 
 
It would save you a lot of time and take the tediousness out of it. 
 
Speaking of tedious ... back to rigging for me. 

Wherever you read that is probably a site where mendacity is a dominant factor - or passed on by an individual who got his information such a site.

The Wood Database translated to relevant
the wood is hard
it is essentially interchanged with Hickory - which means that it is open pore. The grain and pores do not scale well.  Sealed and painted or hidden, it should do as well as Hickory, Ash, Oak, Walnut.  It is apparently tricky to mill - tearout or burn if tool edges are not really sharp.  
 
If it were Apple or other fruitwood you would want to kill for it.  Nutwood is better for 1:1 scale projects.
If you seal the ends well, debark, protect from rain, give it good airflow, when seasoned  -1 year per inch - you will have a good utility wood - jigs - inside the hull parts.
I can get other nutwood - Oak, Walnut, Ash - already seasoned and in rectangular form from Yukon Lumber right now. 
It is not trash, (anything in the Cottonwood family is trash),  but for a one off, learning to mill, not going to expand to other really desirable and otherwise unobtainable species,  the specific reward from this log will be relatively low.  I would probably process it and try to make something unique from a small fraction of it as a gift to the neighbor.  Now, if you have neighbors with Apple trees, Plum, Crab Apple, Japanese Plum (Loquat), Hawtorn, Dogwood,  possibly Peach if you can beat the fungus,  and given the prices Holly - for us less than snow white and even Blue Mold infected Holly is right at the top of desirable - -- bribe them -  be a wood vampire.

I follow those Apple choices too.   The Hearne is expensive and does not look clear enough to use for framing stock - which is what I would use a large volume for.
Framing uses an unbelievable wood volume - even at 1:60.
 
A yellow variety of Holly is a weed on the family plantation in Caroline county  but not as much as the Sweet Gum.  I do not remember seeing much of it in central Kentucky.
The Apple would probably be easier to find the Eastern mountains.

Back when I was doing all that, I had 5 acres in Delaney Woods, Jessamine Co.  I worked at Cooper Drive VAMC  (It was 400 beds then). 
Red Maple ain't  Sugar Maple (Hard  -  Rock)  Acer saccharum .  I use Hard Maple exclusively from the Acer family.
Probably not in business anymore, but I bought a supply of Hard Maple and Black Cherry from Homer Gregeory  in Morehead.  I also bought too much Sycamore - back before I learned that Underhill was taking about a European Maple species - not the American Plantus occidentalis junk that I bought.  They were a whole sale country sawmill then.  Rough ricks in the weather - it was all well seasoned - I got 4x4 - today I would get 8x4.
If I were young and where you are, I would make friends with the county extension network and try to find farmers with healthy but past production full size Apple trees.  Work a deal to get some logs . Who knows, maybe you could get some Holly, Dogwood, or Hornbeam that way?  It is a big regret that I did not try that when I could.  Too much grafted to easy pick size now.  For Holly  it is a fight to beat the Blue Mold before it is seasoned.  I now realize that for us, even the worst Blue Mold infected wood is perfectly OK for our use.  It is just as sound.  It is just grey.  That is a more perfect deck color than the commercial snow white Holly.  No species of wood used for decks is white and the grey mimics the effect of sun and seawater.  The white has become ridiculously expensive and the stuff that is perfect of us  is probably being burned. 
 

You do not provide your location here on Terra, but the straight narrow trunk looks like a small Hard Maple I lost to a tornado - one of the bunch that destroyed Xenia, OH.
My local Hardwood supplier has kiln dried Hard Maple.  There is also Soft Maple - which I despise - I prefer Yellow Poplar for stock where a low density hardwood does the job.   Seasoning and processing logs into usable lumber is a lot of work, ages expensive tools, and takes up time and space.  I see it as prudent to only expend that effort on wood species that are either unavailable any other way, or very expensive.  And expensive is a toss up.  Hard Maple and Black Cherry are both available here in the eastern US and are less than $10 /BF.  I have and use a lot of both,  but processing either from a log would cost me way more than $10 - all factors included.
No,  but my present situation - age, hernia, physical location (as far from rural as it gets in Virginia and actually on The Bay) places me out of the running any more.  The Bradford Pear was street trash on Pretty Lake Blvd. after the last hurricane.  I had to tie a rope around the big log and drag it up the street to my condo behind my "Z".  It was both too heavy to lift and I am lucky that the Z has enough room for food resupply.  No way that log would fit.
I tried to buy an Alaskan Mill or something like it - from Silvo Hardware.   I waited and waited, then one day I got a letter stating than I was a party in a bankruptcy proceeding.  
I have a 16" Shindaiwa  buried in the back of a closet - everything rubber is probably oxidized to brittle by now - and back when I was getting all this, there was a type of chain available that was pretty aggressive - if I had gotten the mill, I probably would have bought it - but then it must have set some regulator hair on fire, because it disappeared from the market.

I have a bit of it.  Some is on the floor of my garage - dry and waiting to be processed into billets.  It is excellent for our use.  I love it.  Not near as much as Apple, but it is wonder stuff.  Differences from Pyrus communis is that it is more brown than pink and it has a waxed sheen to it.  There is some difference in the color of Spring and Summer wood and each can be fairly wide - the tree is fairly fast growing.
 
I used an electric chain saw (el cheepo HF) to bisect the largest - to speed seasoning and remove the pith. There was significant loss to kerf and a freehand chainsaw rip cut is dangerous.  An Alaska mill is both safer and produces more precise planks.  A log is difficult to place so that it does not move and the end of the bar does not have the teeth digging up soil.  The electric has lower power so the kickback force is easier to resist.  Beyond a certain thickness, a completely round log can be a real challenge to resaw on a bandsaw.  About the best that a tablesaw can do is 2" and a rolling log is a nightmare to rip cut.
 
I used left over enamel paint to make thick coats on the cut ends - too much checking if you do not seal the ends.  It dries faster if it is debarked and it removes carpenter ants and wood boring larvae eggs.  Seasoning is usually one year per inch of thickness.
For a lot of tree species, the branches are at ~ 90 degrees.  This offers the possibility of getting compass timber.  Unfortunately - Bradford Pear branches - splits into two equal forks mostly at a sharp "Y" .  This does not make for much useful compass timber.  For the tree itself, it means that the tree tends split like pealing a banana when exposed to high winds and the tree is old enough that there is a significant diameter ( weight).

I regret that my intent was misunderstood.  I two finger type and tend to leave out a lot of explanation, assuming that my mind can be read.
For the record,  if I have a negative view about something in logs or technical forums - I keep it to myself.  I do not see a "be careful, you might be walking into a minefield" comment as being negative.  I would want to know.  I guess spending months on an experiment and almost presenting a paper on something that was really artifact, not recognized because of poor controls, has made me too careful about trusting assumptions. 
 
Wood identification is plenty difficult and regional differences abound.  
I was trying to suggest that while the silica inclusions and significant tool dulling correlates with your report, the hardness that you find in your stock does not seem to match that reported for the Anigre supplied with some kits?  I have not personally used the species and have no investment either way.  In your place, I would see the hardness factor as a potential red flag when ordering more.  Maybe a PM would have been a better choice to give a warning.
 
I am not telling you what you should use,  in the way that you took it.  
I see shipping costs as becoming a significant problem.  Wood has weight and volume.
There is a cachet around a few species of wood that seems to affect choices.
In the US, we are at a cost disadvantage for Pyrus communis ( Pear, Swiss Pear ) it is not a domestic species here - I am guessing that it is almost a weed in certain areas of Europe.  The premium that we pay places it as being difficult to justify for high volume use.
Boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) would be expensive, but it cannot be had for ready money.
The commonly selected substitute  Castelo  is seeing an imbalance in demand vesus supply.  The cost is becoming usurious here.
 
I am focused exclusively  on POF at a  larger scale.  The volume  of wood needed for a single hull is in the 10's of board feet.
I cannot justify paying import prices for framing stock. 
There are readily available species that will substitute.  They are not a perfect match, but are "close enough for government work".
For Boxwood - Hard Maple,  for Pear  - Black Cherry.    Birch and certain species of Beech work as well as Hard Maple.
Right now, they are ~$9 / BF.  So, a  "I want to make sure I have enough"  50 BF is $450.  Keep in mind, that WELL OVER 50% is going to be sawdust and scroll cut discards.
I find it a bit ....ironic?..  when build logs that celebrate finding that Maple and Cherry work and turnout as well as they do - given that they are a forced substitute - are taken as recommendations for their use in regions of the world where they are expensive imports.  In Europe, where this most often appears, there are much better and lower cost domestic lumber species.
 
Australia is a bit of a major player here.   Most everything used in North America and Europe is an import there.  I am guessing that the prices are a bit onerous. 
What I was trying to do:    it was meant as bait to produce a discussion  - or better,  locally informed suggestions for species, domestic for Australia.  Species that can be your substitutes and not pay the significant import costs.  I was thinking that economy and saving money is a GOOD thing.   The bait was for you to jump on the chance to recommend locally harvested lumber that your fellow countrymen can use as  reasonably priced and easy to obtain substitutes.
 
  I was thinking that you might know ways to avoid enriching Maersk et al. and still get suitable lumber.  
 
 

Wherever you read that is probably a site where mendacity is a dominant factor - or passed on by an individual who got his information such a site.

I regret that my intent was misunderstood.  I two finger type and tend to leave out a lot of explanation, assuming that my mind can be read.
For the record,  if I have a negative view about something in logs or technical forums - I keep it to myself.  I do not see a "be careful, you might be walking into a minefield" comment as being negative.  I would want to know.  I guess spending months on an experiment and almost presenting a paper on something that was really artifact, not recognized because of poor controls, has made me too careful about trusting assumptions. 
 
Wood identification is plenty difficult and regional differences abound.  
I was trying to suggest that while the silica inclusions and significant tool dulling correlates with your report, the hardness that you find in your stock does not seem to match that reported for the Anigre supplied with some kits?  I have not personally used the species and have no investment either way.  In your place, I would see the hardness factor as a potential red flag when ordering more.  Maybe a PM would have been a better choice to give a warning.
 
I am not telling you what you should use,  in the way that you took it.  
I see shipping costs as becoming a significant problem.  Wood has weight and volume.
There is a cachet around a few species of wood that seems to affect choices.
In the US, we are at a cost disadvantage for Pyrus communis ( Pear, Swiss Pear ) it is not a domestic species here - I am guessing that it is almost a weed in certain areas of Europe.  The premium that we pay places it as being difficult to justify for high volume use.
Boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) would be expensive, but it cannot be had for ready money.
The commonly selected substitute  Castelo  is seeing an imbalance in demand vesus supply.  The cost is becoming usurious here.
 
I am focused exclusively  on POF at a  larger scale.  The volume  of wood needed for a single hull is in the 10's of board feet.
I cannot justify paying import prices for framing stock. 
There are readily available species that will substitute.  They are not a perfect match, but are "close enough for government work".
For Boxwood - Hard Maple,  for Pear  - Black Cherry.    Birch and certain species of Beech work as well as Hard Maple.
Right now, they are ~$9 / BF.  So, a  "I want to make sure I have enough"  50 BF is $450.  Keep in mind, that WELL OVER 50% is going to be sawdust and scroll cut discards.
I find it a bit ....ironic?..  when build logs that celebrate finding that Maple and Cherry work and turnout as well as they do - given that they are a forced substitute - are taken as recommendations for their use in regions of the world where they are expensive imports.  In Europe, where this most often appears, there are much better and lower cost domestic lumber species.
 
Australia is a bit of a major player here.   Most everything used in North America and Europe is an import there.  I am guessing that the prices are a bit onerous. 
What I was trying to do:    it was meant as bait to produce a discussion  - or better,  locally informed suggestions for species, domestic for Australia.  Species that can be your substitutes and not pay the significant import costs.  I was thinking that economy and saving money is a GOOD thing.   The bait was for you to jump on the chance to recommend locally harvested lumber that your fellow countrymen can use as  reasonably priced and easy to obtain substitutes.
 
  I was thinking that you might know ways to avoid enriching Maersk et al. and still get suitable lumber.  
 
 

I regret that my intent was misunderstood.  I two finger type and tend to leave out a lot of explanation, assuming that my mind can be read.
For the record,  if I have a negative view about something in logs or technical forums - I keep it to myself.  I do not see a "be careful, you might be walking into a minefield" comment as being negative.  I would want to know.  I guess spending months on an experiment and almost presenting a paper on something that was really artifact, not recognized because of poor controls, has made me too careful about trusting assumptions. 
 
Wood identification is plenty difficult and regional differences abound.  
I was trying to suggest that while the silica inclusions and significant tool dulling correlates with your report, the hardness that you find in your stock does not seem to match that reported for the Anigre supplied with some kits?  I have not personally used the species and have no investment either way.  In your place, I would see the hardness factor as a potential red flag when ordering more.  Maybe a PM would have been a better choice to give a warning.
 
I am not telling you what you should use,  in the way that you took it.  
I see shipping costs as becoming a significant problem.  Wood has weight and volume.
There is a cachet around a few species of wood that seems to affect choices.
In the US, we are at a cost disadvantage for Pyrus communis ( Pear, Swiss Pear ) it is not a domestic species here - I am guessing that it is almost a weed in certain areas of Europe.  The premium that we pay places it as being difficult to justify for high volume use.
Boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) would be expensive, but it cannot be had for ready money.
The commonly selected substitute  Castelo  is seeing an imbalance in demand vesus supply.  The cost is becoming usurious here.
 
I am focused exclusively  on POF at a  larger scale.  The volume  of wood needed for a single hull is in the 10's of board feet.
I cannot justify paying import prices for framing stock. 
There are readily available species that will substitute.  They are not a perfect match, but are "close enough for government work".
For Boxwood - Hard Maple,  for Pear  - Black Cherry.    Birch and certain species of Beech work as well as Hard Maple.
Right now, they are ~$9 / BF.  So, a  "I want to make sure I have enough"  50 BF is $450.  Keep in mind, that WELL OVER 50% is going to be sawdust and scroll cut discards.
I find it a bit ....ironic?..  when build logs that celebrate finding that Maple and Cherry work and turnout as well as they do - given that they are a forced substitute - are taken as recommendations for their use in regions of the world where they are expensive imports.  In Europe, where this most often appears, there are much better and lower cost domestic lumber species.
 
Australia is a bit of a major player here.   Most everything used in North America and Europe is an import there.  I am guessing that the prices are a bit onerous. 
What I was trying to do:    it was meant as bait to produce a discussion  - or better,  locally informed suggestions for species, domestic for Australia.  Species that can be your substitutes and not pay the significant import costs.  I was thinking that economy and saving money is a GOOD thing.   The bait was for you to jump on the chance to recommend locally harvested lumber that your fellow countrymen can use as  reasonably priced and easy to obtain substitutes.
 
  I was thinking that you might know ways to avoid enriching Maersk et al. and still get suitable lumber.  
 
 

Allan,
I posit something that is probably very unpopular, but likely the case:
The several wooden Old Timers and all of the modern replicas are absolutely dependent on the interest of tourists and the general public.  It is Show Time or Death for them.
The look of the decking - the width and color of the caulking and obvious trunnels probably has more to do with what the public expects to see and what the most economical
commercial products present than actual practice 200-400 years ago.  From the various photos posted here, most look too wide and too constrasty.
 
@Bob Cleek  Since there are a lot of species of Bamboo - that is likely the case.  But we have no control over what is on grocery store endcaps.  I also suspect that the skewer manufacturers
get a different species with every lot.  For it to be predictable - they would probably have to tree-farm their own supply.  It is a grass, so it would be easier than Oak or even Pine.

Actually, I am potentially quite the fan - under one condition.  That is if the trunnels are used to actually secure the planks - they go thru the plank and into the frame or beam. (But they do make a hash of the frame or beam integrity.)  Hitch chocks on lills take care of any needed clamping.  However,  the cost has become too high for me now.  I have moved from 1:48 to 1:60 - so the diameter is a problem. 
Even the finest brass pins become too large.  Bamboo does not draw all that efficiently in the #76-#80 range and I do not have any pins that small anyway.  (The procedure is to use pins with hitch chocks to fix the planks, then pull the pins, use a broach in the hole and then drive in the Bamboo.)  Finishing out the proper pattern requires a lot of attention and a lot of time.  I have been considering using copper wire instead of brass pins along with Bamboo - since for at least one time period,  half wood and half metal was used.  But I find that the copper offers too much resistance to being drawn by me.  The contemporary French model have examples of brass trunnels.  I think that there is at least one old model where iron was once used - except that now it is a hole with an iron oxide stain in a broad ring in the wood around the hole.  No insult is intended to the fans of trunnels, but it seems seems absurd to me to go to all the work if drilling shallow holes and filling them with faux trunnels.  It might be worth the effort if the trunnels are actually doing a job.  For just looks that are essentially anti-historical - naw.

It depends on objective and the type of model that you are building.
 
On the real ship, the deck fasteners were essentially invisible.  They were counter sunk, given a dose of sticky water resistant material and sealed over with a plug of the same species as the decking,  not end grain, but grain oriented to run parallel with the deck grain.  If you got on your hands and knees, and looked closely, the outer circle would be visible.
 
If it is a fad based modelers convention look,  anything goes.   A curiously popular look  with no basis in reality is plank butts on the same beam in every other strake and fake trunnels at just the butts.   It probably should include rhinestones, balloons, and glitter. 
 
On the contemporary models with hull planking trunnels, the trunnels were likely real fasteners.  I like the idea of mechanical fasteners, but because of the material physical limitations,  the trunnels are over scale.  Plus, it is really tedious to draw thousands of strings of fine bamboo.  On a real ship, the slush or paint would hide the trunnels and spikes.