Jaager

From an outsider and theoretical perspective:
What is the need to fill the gaps between planking with anything for the first layer of a two layer POB hull?  The entirety is covered by the second layer.
If the problem is hollows between the molds - PVA glue a scab layer of wood veneer at the hollow.
Pine or Basswood should be soft enough not to resist paring more than the actual first layer.
For really shallow dips, a curl of Pine made using a plane should be a proper thickness.

From an outsider and theoretical perspective:
What is the need to fill the gaps between planking with anything for the first layer of a two layer POB hull?  The entirety is covered by the second layer.
If the problem is hollows between the molds - PVA glue a scab layer of wood veneer at the hollow.
Pine or Basswood should be soft enough not to resist paring more than the actual first layer.
For really shallow dips, a curl of Pine made using a plane should be a proper thickness.

PVA bonds are mechanical /physical bonds.  While the words dry and cure are used for the bonding process, what is happening is the "poly" part.
A catalyzed chemical reaction is occurring.  The acrylamide units are bonding into long chains.  These chains intrude into the irregular and porous surfaces of the two surfaces being bonded.
It is a physical grip by PVA chains that makes the bond. 
Metals and plastics have smooth surfaces and have no pores.  There is nothing for the PVA chains intrude into. 
For wood to wood, PVA is an excellent choice.   For wood to metal or wood to plastic, you are wasting your effort.  It ain't gonna bond.
 
CA might work, but you are bonding a large surface area and the CA on a lot of it - the earliest applied - has probably finished its chemical reaction before the entire surface has been treated.  It is just newly added bumps keeping the two surfaces from even touching.
 
Epoxy is good for wood to metal.  There are watery clear two part epoxy that have a long enough open time - if epoxy is compatible with polystyrene.
 
There are a lot of kits with inadequate instructions,  but for a kit that is using materials that are almost never used together,  materials that probably should not be used together,  materials that require a unique bonding agent,  it is unconscionable not make suggestions for an agent suitable to bond them.

NAVY BOARD  SHIP MODELS 1650-1750                                
FRANKLIN,JOHN                                                    
US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS                     
ANNAPOLIS, MD            
1989
 
The primary focus is on ship models that are 100 years earlier than Bristol. 
But they are at the apex of ship modelers art.  
Probably not much direct help, but the models featured  do show alternatives to an exact replication of every minor construction detail of a ship's innards.

NAVY BOARD  SHIP MODELS 1650-1750                                
FRANKLIN,JOHN                                                    
US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS                     
ANNAPOLIS, MD            
1989
 
The primary focus is on ship models that are 100 years earlier than Bristol. 
But they are at the apex of ship modelers art.  
Probably not much direct help, but the models featured  do show alternatives to an exact replication of every minor construction detail of a ship's innards.

I am just speculating, but  Old Brown and Franklin hide glues are convenient because they are used at room temp.  The downside is that the water concentration has to be high enough to produce unwanted side effects in the wood being glued.   If you are serious, you might oughta pay the price of the hassle of a glue pot.   The water concentration is just enough to get a fluid - if you do it correctly.
I break my rules this one time and use a man made synthetic -PVA  - because a hot pot is too much extra work.

I have the old Dremel 1"/5" combo that is what preceded all of these others
I have not really found a use for it.  If you find you need a disc sander, one of the Byrens machines will serve you well.
A belt sander seems to be aggressive.  You are POB?  I think you will really regret using one to bevel the moulds.  It will eat more than you want it to, faster than you want it to.
If you intend to use it to spill planks, there are much safer ways.  A miniature hand plane can remove fine curls until you get to the sanding block stage.
 
It has been a couple of lifetimes since I built a kit and none was POB.  With that, I am having a difficult time visualizing a job for a belt sander with a POB build.  Certainly no job that a hand tool would not do at a much lower cost and be easier to migrate with.
 
I do use a 4"x36" el cheepo HF belt sander.  It is excellent at doing bulk beveling of a 1"-2" thick plywood made of 12 layers of Hard Maple and Pine.  But if you do that, you need to live alone.  The cloud of saw dust makes Pigpen look pristine and a 1950's South Carolina cotton mill look like an operating room.

These will be random and mostly unrelated thoughts:
 
Bristol was at the end of the 18th century style warships.  the older modelers conventions still have credibility. 
 
Starting about 1780 there was an inflection point in warship design.  There was a long period (1780 - 1815 / 35 years) of near constant warfare with severe stress on both the treasury and resources.  There were major improvements in artillery.  Hull forms began their move from art to efficiency.  The older conventions look out of place.
 
My point?  If you look at Franklin, you will see that many or most of those 17th century models used stylized construction - the ends did not mimic actual prototype timbering.  Corners were cut.
During the 18th century - the old Navy Board framing dropped - but for some if not most of the models, some form of stylized framing was used.  It even extended to carved solid - either painted or full planked.  Some were solid and painted with faux frames. 
 
The first fork is:  for the hull below the wale...   do you do a Bellona style exact engineering class demo model?  or do you opt for a more artful model using one of several modelers conventions?
 
The stern of Centurion -  the vertical structural timbers between the windows had a different and increasing angle depending on their file.  The windows had mullions that were different depending on how far out from the centerline they were.  They were the same on every deck for the file they were in.
 
Your transoms below the wing transom are not tenable.  As a half hull they look OK - but as a P&S together whole, they describe too much of an arch.   There was a fashion timber that was a cant. 
I do not care to futz with a cant frame, so I added a whole bend farther aft to fill where the fashion timber would be.   I see the fashion frame as starting at the deadwood touching your farthest aft bend and angling to the outer end of the wing transom.  My last bend is at the outer point of the wing transom.
 
The inflection transom below the wing transom is at the level of the main gun deck beams.  I made mine wider and carved a land for the deck planks - a wide landing.
 

This is a complicated and a "it depends" goal.
If you want the popular version, use actual copper sheets or foil,  to go deeply into decorator kitsch - use the material with soup bowl sized bumps.  Neither will be realistic.
 
A thin archival paper painted with a material containing metallic copper particles will be closer to scale.  There are reactive follow on solutions to get as much or as little green or blue if and as desired.
Being paper, PVA can be used to bond the plates.  Coating the hull with PVA and letting dry at the start,  coating the plates with PVA and letting it dry,  allows for an iron with temp control to fix the plate to the hull -near instantly.  
An experiment to try: 
coat a sheet with PVA.
paint the other side with copper.
I am thinking that mineral spirits or terp based enamel (redundant?) would be better than water based paint - which probably does not like metallic copper anyway - as well as leaving a flat icky finish when dry.
Then use the guillotine to get individual plates.
This may not be kosher,  but each sheet could be painted with a slightly different shade of copper - very slightly different -too show off the plates as being individuals.
 
Questions:
What is the effect of the paint on polymerized PVA on the other side of a sheet of paper?
Would painting first and then coating with PVA on the other side produce a surface incompatible with PVA bonding to it?
If it does not, that means that a wet coat of PVA on the other side of a painted plate could be used to bond the plate to a bare wood hull.  With a 15 min open time, I am guessing that the wet to dry method could be complicated and slower to get a tight bond. 
 
 
I looked at your outside carved boat hull at this stage - and thought: 'what a wonderful mould!'
Shellac the hull, Fix it upside down on a block.  Mount the stem, keel, and stern.  Saran Wrap or paraffin wax.   Then use thick paper or thin cardboard as scale appropriate planking.
It would be thin, so the rail  need not be as wide. 
You could make as many replicates of the hull as you could possibly want.  As well as not having to be perfect on your first try.
For the ribs -  use a wood that tolerates bending - dry heat bend - increment bend until it fits - being dry, PVA will be the bonding agent.
 
 

I have the old Dremel 1"/5" combo that is what preceded all of these others
I have not really found a use for it.  If you find you need a disc sander, one of the Byrens machines will serve you well.
A belt sander seems to be aggressive.  You are POB?  I think you will really regret using one to bevel the moulds.  It will eat more than you want it to, faster than you want it to.
If you intend to use it to spill planks, there are much safer ways.  A miniature hand plane can remove fine curls until you get to the sanding block stage.
 
It has been a couple of lifetimes since I built a kit and none was POB.  With that, I am having a difficult time visualizing a job for a belt sander with a POB build.  Certainly no job that a hand tool would not do at a much lower cost and be easier to migrate with.
 
I do use a 4"x36" el cheepo HF belt sander.  It is excellent at doing bulk beveling of a 1"-2" thick plywood made of 12 layers of Hard Maple and Pine.  But if you do that, you need to live alone.  The cloud of saw dust makes Pigpen look pristine and a 1950's South Carolina cotton mill look like an operating room.

I am just speculating, but  Old Brown and Franklin hide glues are convenient because they are used at room temp.  The downside is that the water concentration has to be high enough to produce unwanted side effects in the wood being glued.   If you are serious, you might oughta pay the price of the hassle of a glue pot.   The water concentration is just enough to get a fluid - if you do it correctly.
I break my rules this one time and use a man made synthetic -PVA  - because a hot pot is too much extra work.

I have the old Dremel 1"/5" combo that is what preceded all of these others
I have not really found a use for it.  If you find you need a disc sander, one of the Byrens machines will serve you well.
A belt sander seems to be aggressive.  You are POB?  I think you will really regret using one to bevel the moulds.  It will eat more than you want it to, faster than you want it to.
If you intend to use it to spill planks, there are much safer ways.  A miniature hand plane can remove fine curls until you get to the sanding block stage.
 
It has been a couple of lifetimes since I built a kit and none was POB.  With that, I am having a difficult time visualizing a job for a belt sander with a POB build.  Certainly no job that a hand tool would not do at a much lower cost and be easier to migrate with.
 
I do use a 4"x36" el cheepo HF belt sander.  It is excellent at doing bulk beveling of a 1"-2" thick plywood made of 12 layers of Hard Maple and Pine.  But if you do that, you need to live alone.  The cloud of saw dust makes Pigpen look pristine and a 1950's South Carolina cotton mill look like an operating room.

There is a fan that can be printed out in the Articles Database.
 
The easy way is to use it with a tick strip.  The TS gets you the open distance at each frame (for POF) at each mould (for POB).
The fan gets you the sub division of that distance.  
There is no way to avoid distance creep during planking, so I advise measurement and subdivision after every plank is fixed to the hull.
e.g  marking off 8 (for example) segments at the beginning and expecting that last 8th plank width to match what was expected at the beginning is profound exercise in wishful thinking.
 
Three goring belts is usually enough for most smaller hulls.
I would start the measuring of the goring belts and their subdivisions after the wale and the garboard are fixed.  The garboard is a special critter. It needs to be the size needed for it to do its job.  If it is not correct, the rest does not matter.

There is a fan that can be printed out in the Articles Database.
 
The easy way is to use it with a tick strip.  The TS gets you the open distance at each frame (for POF) at each mould (for POB).
The fan gets you the sub division of that distance.  
There is no way to avoid distance creep during planking, so I advise measurement and subdivision after every plank is fixed to the hull.
e.g  marking off 8 (for example) segments at the beginning and expecting that last 8th plank width to match what was expected at the beginning is profound exercise in wishful thinking.
 
Three goring belts is usually enough for most smaller hulls.
I would start the measuring of the goring belts and their subdivisions after the wale and the garboard are fixed.  The garboard is a special critter. It needs to be the size needed for it to do its job.  If it is not correct, the rest does not matter.

There is a fan that can be printed out in the Articles Database.
 
The easy way is to use it with a tick strip.  The TS gets you the open distance at each frame (for POF) at each mould (for POB).
The fan gets you the sub division of that distance.  
There is no way to avoid distance creep during planking, so I advise measurement and subdivision after every plank is fixed to the hull.
e.g  marking off 8 (for example) segments at the beginning and expecting that last 8th plank width to match what was expected at the beginning is profound exercise in wishful thinking.
 
Three goring belts is usually enough for most smaller hulls.
I would start the measuring of the goring belts and their subdivisions after the wale and the garboard are fixed.  The garboard is a special critter. It needs to be the size needed for it to do its job.  If it is not correct, the rest does not matter.

There is a fan that can be printed out in the Articles Database.
 
The easy way is to use it with a tick strip.  The TS gets you the open distance at each frame (for POF) at each mould (for POB).
The fan gets you the sub division of that distance.  
There is no way to avoid distance creep during planking, so I advise measurement and subdivision after every plank is fixed to the hull.
e.g  marking off 8 (for example) segments at the beginning and expecting that last 8th plank width to match what was expected at the beginning is profound exercise in wishful thinking.
 
Three goring belts is usually enough for most smaller hulls.
I would start the measuring of the goring belts and their subdivisions after the wale and the garboard are fixed.  The garboard is a special critter. It needs to be the size needed for it to do its job.  If it is not correct, the rest does not matter.

Thru the lens of Time,
 
A lathe and a mill are probably Yacht type acquisitions.
i.e. for a yacht,  if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
 
For the two machines, the corollary is -  especially if woodworking only,   instead of or along with metal working:
if you have to ask, you really do not need it yet.

As you survey the card commercial offerings,  I am wondering if by using a program like GIMP, good mapping, and quality textures, you could scratch build just about any vessel with adequate plans?

As you survey the card commercial offerings,  I am wondering if by using a program like GIMP, good mapping, and quality textures, you could scratch build just about any vessel with adequate plans?

As you survey the card commercial offerings,  I am wondering if by using a program like GIMP, good mapping, and quality textures, you could scratch build just about any vessel with adequate plans?

As you survey the card commercial offerings,  I am wondering if by using a program like GIMP, good mapping, and quality textures, you could scratch build just about any vessel with adequate plans?

Two lessons from this:
It is not practical to scratch build unless you are or can access your own sawmill/millwork  tools.  Looks to be heading to you will have to be sawyer as well.
It makes sense that in the UK, most old buildings are refurbished rather than removed and replaced.
 
 

I just checked Home Depot site.  
A 2x6 8' long  is $8  that is actually   1.5" x 5.5"  x ~2 m     
With a bandsaw and thickness sander you could get  2 layers for one side  or 1 layer of the whole hull for ~ 16 L?  If 1" layers - which is maybe too thick.
You can probably get by with 6-8. 
 
A 2x6 x 10'   ~3m  = $10  or for you ~ 20 L.
With 1/2"  layers  each board  =   6   5.5" x 1 m
Two boards may be enough.  CYA = 3 boards  that is ~60 L.
 
If you beg nicely, you may find a local cabinetmaker or woodworker with a bandsaw.  The lumberyard will maybe cross cut the board into 1 m lengths ( Measure your max hull length - add a buffer - longer than needed is wasteful, too short is a disaster.)  The few cuts you need and using a softwood, the job is zip/zip.  They may also have a big boy thickness sander. 
 

Thru the lens of Time,
 
A lathe and a mill are probably Yacht type acquisitions.
i.e. for a yacht,  if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
 
For the two machines, the corollary is -  especially if woodworking only,   instead of or along with metal working:
if you have to ask, you really do not need it yet.

Nu, unless you developed a magnetic attraction for the subject.
 
I wrote that to make a point. 
The point is:
with a wood ship model kit, all is never lost if you make a mistake. With wood, the same (or most often) better components can be self manufactured.  The barrier to scratch is more imaginary than real, unlike with a kit of molded plastic pieces,