Jaager

Unless the color is not appropriate, using it 'As Is' will work;   no treatment is necessary.    If darker is the goal, a wood dye will do the job.
Blue Mold is not like the fungus that turned a trunk of Apple that I had not prepared correctly into meal. 
 
Oxalic acid does work.  I used it on a door of an old book case, Took it back to looking like fresh cut wood.  It was an antique - extreme refinishing was a bad idea - destroyed any value,  but the stuff worked.
 
As far as I can tell, Blue Mold is benign except for the color thing.  If only we could save all of the infected Holly and off-white Holly from going to the breakers and buy it.

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

To add to your possible options:
First,  I have been following this since the early 1970's and subscribing to all of the English language "journals" as well as about every book as it came out.  The only instance of having a deck plank butt on the same beam with every other strake has come from OcCre.  I have no idea where they came up it something both hideous and dangerous engineering.  Having ax handle diameter trunnels - standing out like carbide lamp beacons - at and only at each butt - is graphitti. 
 
Wood swells across the fibers.  They are not muscles.  they do not get longer.  If the end to end butt is tight when the deck is laid, a wide caulk filled seam is not needed.  The end to end butts would be difficult to see.
On actual ships that were well built, the deck trunnels were supposed to be as invisible as possible.   If it is to be modeler's convention show off deck trunnels,  there is a rigid pattern to be followed - and the contrast should still be subtile. 
 
Polaris is more boat than ship.  I do not see when it was supposed to have been built - or where - but in early to mid 19th c US, 40 foot long 10  inch wide planks were specified for corvettes - much larger.   A single plank per strake - without a cross scratch - would pass muster.  If you are laying it on a subdeck before it joins the stanchions/top timbers and outside planking a single is easy.  Trimming off the overhang at each end is easy.   If the deck is laid on beams.  with waterways in place,   the complex ends are more difficult to fit.  Jogging, nibbing,  or curved  starting outside in.   Getting a winning role of the dice at both ends is difficult.  Here two pieces may be easier.  A simple 90 degree join in the middle is easier to pull off.
 
Higher cost and not so good a choice for end cutting.
Choppers - crush fibers - even as a knife blade - they do not cut. 
HF Drill Master 2 inch - motorized - needs a lot of work on the work surface- kinda dangerous - throws what it cuts off  - is clearance so is probably soon to be extinct - MicroLux is probably the same unit.   Prozzon wants your next born for something 10 times more expensive and maybe 25% better made.
 
Quick and dirty:
Use a saw - a razor saw - mass market work fine - Zona , Exacto,
I prefer a cut on the pull stroke.   This requires either a Japanese mini saw - expensive - or a razor saw with a blade that can be separated from its backing and reversed.
 
a miter box - depends - with a saw with teeth that have set, the slot has to be wider - so some play.
Protractor:
Draw a line and cut by eye, then:
 
Get a 3/4" thick square of wood  12"x12" is enough - plywood is OK,  an off cut from an Oak stair tread wonderful.   Overhang the end of the plank.  Sanding blocks -  80 grit to remove a lot.  220 grit to finish.     If you can find sand paper with a simple paper or cloth backing - not the non-skid stuff - a coat of rubber cement on the block and on the paper - wait 15 min - press together - endless supply.
 
I found a $13 Porter Cable replacement miter gauge that might fit the board.  A stick of wood with a center pivot,  a distance out spike or screw, and a protractor with movable arms may be all you need to get accuracy for any angle.

To add to your possible options:
First,  I have been following this since the early 1970's and subscribing to all of the English language "journals" as well as about every book as it came out.  The only instance of having a deck plank butt on the same beam with every other strake has come from OcCre.  I have no idea where they came up it something both hideous and dangerous engineering.  Having ax handle diameter trunnels - standing out like carbide lamp beacons - at and only at each butt - is graphitti. 
 
Wood swells across the fibers.  They are not muscles.  they do not get longer.  If the end to end butt is tight when the deck is laid, a wide caulk filled seam is not needed.  The end to end butts would be difficult to see.
On actual ships that were well built, the deck trunnels were supposed to be as invisible as possible.   If it is to be modeler's convention show off deck trunnels,  there is a rigid pattern to be followed - and the contrast should still be subtile. 
 
Polaris is more boat than ship.  I do not see when it was supposed to have been built - or where - but in early to mid 19th c US, 40 foot long 10  inch wide planks were specified for corvettes - much larger.   A single plank per strake - without a cross scratch - would pass muster.  If you are laying it on a subdeck before it joins the stanchions/top timbers and outside planking a single is easy.  Trimming off the overhang at each end is easy.   If the deck is laid on beams.  with waterways in place,   the complex ends are more difficult to fit.  Jogging, nibbing,  or curved  starting outside in.   Getting a winning role of the dice at both ends is difficult.  Here two pieces may be easier.  A simple 90 degree join in the middle is easier to pull off.
 
Higher cost and not so good a choice for end cutting.
Choppers - crush fibers - even as a knife blade - they do not cut. 
HF Drill Master 2 inch - motorized - needs a lot of work on the work surface- kinda dangerous - throws what it cuts off  - is clearance so is probably soon to be extinct - MicroLux is probably the same unit.   Prozzon wants your next born for something 10 times more expensive and maybe 25% better made.
 
Quick and dirty:
Use a saw - a razor saw - mass market work fine - Zona , Exacto,
I prefer a cut on the pull stroke.   This requires either a Japanese mini saw - expensive - or a razor saw with a blade that can be separated from its backing and reversed.
 
a miter box - depends - with a saw with teeth that have set, the slot has to be wider - so some play.
Protractor:
Draw a line and cut by eye, then:
 
Get a 3/4" thick square of wood  12"x12" is enough - plywood is OK,  an off cut from an Oak stair tread wonderful.   Overhang the end of the plank.  Sanding blocks -  80 grit to remove a lot.  220 grit to finish.     If you can find sand paper with a simple paper or cloth backing - not the non-skid stuff - a coat of rubber cement on the block and on the paper - wait 15 min - press together - endless supply.
 
I found a $13 Porter Cable replacement miter gauge that might fit the board.  A stick of wood with a center pivot,  a distance out spike or screw, and a protractor with movable arms may be all you need to get accuracy for any angle.

To add to your possible options:
First,  I have been following this since the early 1970's and subscribing to all of the English language "journals" as well as about every book as it came out.  The only instance of having a deck plank butt on the same beam with every other strake has come from OcCre.  I have no idea where they came up it something both hideous and dangerous engineering.  Having ax handle diameter trunnels - standing out like carbide lamp beacons - at and only at each butt - is graphitti. 
 
Wood swells across the fibers.  They are not muscles.  they do not get longer.  If the end to end butt is tight when the deck is laid, a wide caulk filled seam is not needed.  The end to end butts would be difficult to see.
On actual ships that were well built, the deck trunnels were supposed to be as invisible as possible.   If it is to be modeler's convention show off deck trunnels,  there is a rigid pattern to be followed - and the contrast should still be subtile. 
 
Polaris is more boat than ship.  I do not see when it was supposed to have been built - or where - but in early to mid 19th c US, 40 foot long 10  inch wide planks were specified for corvettes - much larger.   A single plank per strake - without a cross scratch - would pass muster.  If you are laying it on a subdeck before it joins the stanchions/top timbers and outside planking a single is easy.  Trimming off the overhang at each end is easy.   If the deck is laid on beams.  with waterways in place,   the complex ends are more difficult to fit.  Jogging, nibbing,  or curved  starting outside in.   Getting a winning role of the dice at both ends is difficult.  Here two pieces may be easier.  A simple 90 degree join in the middle is easier to pull off.
 
Higher cost and not so good a choice for end cutting.
Choppers - crush fibers - even as a knife blade - they do not cut. 
HF Drill Master 2 inch - motorized - needs a lot of work on the work surface- kinda dangerous - throws what it cuts off  - is clearance so is probably soon to be extinct - MicroLux is probably the same unit.   Prozzon wants your next born for something 10 times more expensive and maybe 25% better made.
 
Quick and dirty:
Use a saw - a razor saw - mass market work fine - Zona , Exacto,
I prefer a cut on the pull stroke.   This requires either a Japanese mini saw - expensive - or a razor saw with a blade that can be separated from its backing and reversed.
 
a miter box - depends - with a saw with teeth that have set, the slot has to be wider - so some play.
Protractor:
Draw a line and cut by eye, then:
 
Get a 3/4" thick square of wood  12"x12" is enough - plywood is OK,  an off cut from an Oak stair tread wonderful.   Overhang the end of the plank.  Sanding blocks -  80 grit to remove a lot.  220 grit to finish.     If you can find sand paper with a simple paper or cloth backing - not the non-skid stuff - a coat of rubber cement on the block and on the paper - wait 15 min - press together - endless supply.
 
I found a $13 Porter Cable replacement miter gauge that might fit the board.  A stick of wood with a center pivot,  a distance out spike or screw, and a protractor with movable arms may be all you need to get accuracy for any angle.

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

Beech would be an appropriate wood for a 1:60 keel.   But not a lot of help as something readily available as a economical domestic species in the Philippines.
The tropics in South America have several desirable species,  so the climate does not preclude the possibility of a domestic at reasonable cost per BF. 
From just reading the Wood-Database only Hard Milkwood comes up as a possible.  It may take making friends with an old crotchety independent hardwood sawmiller to get a lead and source for domestic lumber with appropriate  characteristics and get it in lumber form.  With a chainsaw, a kiln, and a bandsaw, no tree would be safe - theoretically.

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

Beech would be an appropriate wood for a 1:60 keel.   But not a lot of help as something readily available as a economical domestic species in the Philippines.
The tropics in South America have several desirable species,  so the climate does not preclude the possibility of a domestic at reasonable cost per BF. 
From just reading the Wood-Database only Hard Milkwood comes up as a possible.  It may take making friends with an old crotchety independent hardwood sawmiller to get a lead and source for domestic lumber with appropriate  characteristics and get it in lumber form.  With a chainsaw, a kiln, and a bandsaw, no tree would be safe - theoretically.

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

The Wood-Database does not have much specific for your part of the world.  I would try to find a local hardwood sawmill and see if they have a local wood that is fine texture, no pores large enough to see, straight grain.  Something that looks like Oak or Elm that has been scaled down 50 times.  If you use actual Oak, the grain, pores, and texture will be 50-100 times too large.
There is no tree species with grain that small.  It could not transport water thru tubes that small.  There are however species that are a whole lot closer to scale than is any nutwood.
 
Basswood and Linden have excellent grain characteristics, but their surface is soooo fuzzy.

No way would I pay that much for a machine like that.  I would question its ability to move enough air to do the job.
 
For in the house - at the bench - I use a Kenmore Blue Magic small canister vac.  It uses a collection bag - which is a pain, but otherwise does the job.
 
The handle at the end of the hose has the ON-OFF - which is a slide power control.
I attached the handle to the end of a desk lamp  arm (less the bulb part) using cable ties.
There are desk lamps and THERE ARE DESK LAMPS -  I prefer serious articulation, a desk clamp with some mass,  and arms that will stay in position -no weak wingnuts.
The handle has some weight to it.
 
It took some serious jury rigging to get a hose to fit the opening in the handle and also fit the dust collection port on my Byrnes disc sander. 
I use the tablesaw and thickness sander in my garage.  They are not about finesse.  The disc sander is.
 
An additional advantage is that it can be used to clear stair treads of dust.

I agree.  Going back to the baseline and defining any problem is key to getting things done correctly.
 
There is no standard process.  What, if any, color adjustment depends on the starting material.
 
There are lots of How To articles covering block making.  An easy method for mass production and minimal individual block manipulation is a goal for many.
 
One possible beginning:
If you have plastic blocks from a kit -  then perhaps using a series of coats of a dilute enamel paint that is the desired wood shade?  
String the blocks on wire and dip them over and over?  Light touch as far as pigment density per coat?   On small  blocks - I see brush application being frustrating.  Using an aerosol application on a sphere - a lot of manipulation of the target - awkward manipulation.     

The first generation acrylic paints had icky surface texture - like chalk- the paintings that I saw - I did not care for the look. But the molecules are hydrophilic. They play nice with water.  Alcohol and acrylic molecules may not play nice together - or - a shade that is a mixture of pigments may have some molecules having a different affinity and the color come out different.
 
 
The lack of precision in the use of terminology leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
A dye has a solvent.  It is a true solution. individual molecules evenly dispersed in the solvent.  No settling, no change in content over time.  Where the solvent goes, the dye molecules also go.
A stain has a vehicle.  The pigment particles - a clump of pigment molecules - are temporarily suspended in the liquid carrier.  They settle out if left alone.  They stay on the surface of wood.
 
The dyes that I am familiar with are hydrophilic - they dissolve in water or alcohol - I think alcohol is preferable for scale work.  Surface fibers of wood do not swell with alcohol, they do with wood.
Some old style stains are organic solvent based.  Think of them as semi transparent paints that are wood colored.  Some stains must also contain dyes if they are featured as being "penetrating".
I suspect that an acrylic stain - if such exist - will use water as a carrier - an awful prospect to imagine as far as ending with a smooth surface.
I wonder if the fanatics who ban VOC products use water in their engines? 
 
Dyes are for high quality wood.  As with a fabric dye, the internal substance of the wood becomes the new color.  The grain is unaffected.  Other than the color, the surface is unaffected.  PVA still bonds it.
Stains are for wood with unremarkable grain.  The pigment sits on the surface.   I think a stain will either need a clear overcoat (a varnish - in the original meaning of that word - before there was commercial anything doing that)  or will also contain a polymerizing clear component (varnish stain) or a plastic (polyurethane).  

Pine is good.  I use a lot of it.
There is another wood that is worth a look.  Goodreau Sawmill & Woodworking has Yellow Poplar that costs about the same as their White Pine.
If your focus was a couple hundred years earlier - they also have Hard Maple, Black Cherry, Beech.
They also have the usual nutwood species whose grain and open pores do not scale.
 
I would place a bet that you will come to regret  having a large solid wood carved hull.  The rules that Dana Wegner developed for USN museum acquisitions - rules that specify a hollow hull, are probably the result of lessons paid for from disasters reflected by solid hulls.