Jaager

For UK, I have to amend my suggestions:
Yellow Poplar is  an Eastern US native species.  It is about as hard as Lime, but the colors of the wood is harlequin like.
It is best hidden or painted and has no features that would make it worth paying import prices to use.
Poplar is also a name given to wood from members of the Cottonwood family.  Most of the wood from these species is best used as mulch or pulp for paper.  You do not want to mess with it.
Basswood is a brother to Lime/Linden.  It is not near as good as Lime and is about half as hard and more fuzzy.
 
For your interior supports -  1/4" Pine would be strong, but easier to scroll cut.   As Roger suggests, maybe use 1/8" stock, paired and done as timbers with the butt joints overlapping laterally:  do true frames as 1/4" bends -  make it 1/4" frame and 1.4" space.  With a base of 50% wood for the planking, a single layer would be enough.
The moulded dimension can be wider than the frame of a wooden ship would be.   It can be stair like,  but leave a hollow inside for a motor, batteries and a RF receiver as well as ballast.
 
Even more water immersion friendly would be a hull with no spaces between frames. 
Think a sliced loaf of bread - bread and butter  rather than a sliced hoggie roll bread and butter.
 

While there is a temptation to want to use “the best,” unless you are building an open framed Dockyard style model, the classic ship modeling woods are a waste of money.
 
Do Not use plywood for bulkheads.  By doing so  the working surface becomes the the various veneers and punky “mystery wood” used to laminate the plywood.  While some modelers have had success with  very high quality Baltic Birch plywood this is very different from the usual craft grades available.  Likewise, I would not choose MDF, the staple of many kits today.
 
If you live in the US and have access to a table saw regular construction grade “pine” lumber can be an excellent choice.  In many USA markets this is actually SPF lumber.  This stands for Spruce, Pine, Fir.  For structural members I would choose pine or possibly fir.  Spruce could actually be a nice planking choice as it bends nicely.  It is easily distinguished from the other two. It is whiter in color and has, at least for me, a slightly objectionable odor, not the nice piny smell.
 
True pine is a beautiful wood.  It was the choice of makers of patterns for castings and of professionals building ship models for display and especially for experimental models towed in towing tanks.  In your case, to form bulkheads I would build frames Hahn style laminated from two thinner layers.
 
Selecting your lumber by sorting through  a stack at your local lumberyard to find the right species, and grain orientation can be an enjoyable way to begin your project.  And, since the cost per board ft will be much less than that of a hobby grade material you can afford to buy larger pieces in order to utilize smaller areas with the grain that you are looking for.  Add what’s left over to your stash.
 
Roger

If this is a steel vessel -  and POB is your method
 
the molds do not need to be plywood.  Plywood is ugly to work.  The open grain at the edges makes a poor bonding surface.
if you are US -  Home Depot has 1/4" x 2" x 3'  Yellow Poplar for ~$3   using a hand fret saw would be an easy way to free the molds by following the patterns.
1/4" Pine will work - just avoid stock with sap.
For the outside, the paint finish is the most important factor?   Most any wood will do.  Species that do not resist being bent are easier to plank with.
Open pore species such as Oak, Ash, Willow will do, it is just that open pore species require an additional pore filling step for there to be a smooth finish.
A closed grain species does not need a sealer, it just needs a primer.
You may be able to find packages of veneer at Wood Craft as stock to be spilled 
I am not sure just how long term stable is rotary cut veneer is as bent planking.  If bend in the plane that was curved to when sliced is where it is bent, it may be very stable.
 
I think Basswood is too soft and too fuzzy for your purposes.
Pine veneer could be used for the planking - but most species of Pine are easy to dent.
Premium species intended for use as something with a clear finish will do what you wish,  but you will be paying more than is necessary.
 

If this is a steel vessel -  and POB is your method
 
the molds do not need to be plywood.  Plywood is ugly to work.  The open grain at the edges makes a poor bonding surface.
if you are US -  Home Depot has 1/4" x 2" x 3'  Yellow Poplar for ~$3   using a hand fret saw would be an easy way to free the molds by following the patterns.
1/4" Pine will work - just avoid stock with sap.
For the outside, the paint finish is the most important factor?   Most any wood will do.  Species that do not resist being bent are easier to plank with.
Open pore species such as Oak, Ash, Willow will do, it is just that open pore species require an additional pore filling step for there to be a smooth finish.
A closed grain species does not need a sealer, it just needs a primer.
You may be able to find packages of veneer at Wood Craft as stock to be spilled 
I am not sure just how long term stable is rotary cut veneer is as bent planking.  If bend in the plane that was curved to when sliced is where it is bent, it may be very stable.
 
I think Basswood is too soft and too fuzzy for your purposes.
Pine veneer could be used for the planking - but most species of Pine are easy to dent.
Premium species intended for use as something with a clear finish will do what you wish,  but you will be paying more than is necessary.
 

It probably depends on the material used to form the lines that you are using.
 
The traditional material was plant fiber.  For larger scales, linen/flax yarn twists up into very convincing scale rope.  This is a 'be your own rope works' material.  [Very difficult to find high quality linen yarn now].  Cotton thread is often used and is readily available (or at least has been).  This tread is not spun up the same way as rope so as it comes, it is not a convincing approximation of scale rope.  As a feed choice for a ropewalk it does better. 
For these - shellac or white PVA.  The PVA used for woodwork has a significant concentration of acetic acid.  For archival purposes - bookbinders PVA - pH neutral - is a safe choice.
 
There is a building wave of using man-made / synthetic polymer thread as feed stock for a ropewalk.  This material does not have the same pores/channels/gaps at the microscopic level as cellulose based thread or yarn.  I do not know which bonding agents are compatible.  PVA becomes a series of long chains - intruding into pores and gaps and tangling with each other.  I don't know if PVA has its own version of Tris for cross bonding of the linear chains.  
 
Fibers=> Yarn => Thread => Rope
For linen,  I guess that technically - scale rope is actually thread.  The crushed and combed flax stem fibers are much larger than even cotton yarn.  The difference in feel against skin is probably why cotton became such a big hit with the mass market once an economical way was found to extract the seeds.

It probably depends on the material used to form the lines that you are using.
 
The traditional material was plant fiber.  For larger scales, linen/flax yarn twists up into very convincing scale rope.  This is a 'be your own rope works' material.  [Very difficult to find high quality linen yarn now].  Cotton thread is often used and is readily available (or at least has been).  This tread is not spun up the same way as rope so as it comes, it is not a convincing approximation of scale rope.  As a feed choice for a ropewalk it does better. 
For these - shellac or white PVA.  The PVA used for woodwork has a significant concentration of acetic acid.  For archival purposes - bookbinders PVA - pH neutral - is a safe choice.
 
There is a building wave of using man-made / synthetic polymer thread as feed stock for a ropewalk.  This material does not have the same pores/channels/gaps at the microscopic level as cellulose based thread or yarn.  I do not know which bonding agents are compatible.  PVA becomes a series of long chains - intruding into pores and gaps and tangling with each other.  I don't know if PVA has its own version of Tris for cross bonding of the linear chains.  
 
Fibers=> Yarn => Thread => Rope
For linen,  I guess that technically - scale rope is actually thread.  The crushed and combed flax stem fibers are much larger than even cotton yarn.  The difference in feel against skin is probably why cotton became such a big hit with the mass market once an economical way was found to extract the seeds.

I don't imagine that you intend to initiate a contest.  I think that you should want excellent, or at least good instructions.  The best of a group that is all junk -is still junk.
 
One aspect of wooden kits is = the basic process is pretty much the same for either of the two methods for construction: POB  and the evaporating solid carved hull.
How to do the assembly is well covered in how-to books, the wide spread journal articles,  and the build logs here.  You can do an excellent assembly with no instructions from the kit manufacturer. 
The sameness of the process is probably the reason that POB instructions from older kits are a bit general  -  it probably seemed pointless to "sing Kathleen - one more time".
 
The part that you cannot fake with general sources is the plans. They should be detailed, clear, and precise.  
Accuracy is a whole different thing.  If the subject is developed from existing plans, a half model from the original builder, or a table of offsets,  you should expect true accuracy  and any reconstruction should be footnoted as such.
If the subject is one where all that is available is the name, supposed type, and length, breadth, depth, and displacement or cargo capacity:  There is no accuracy.  It starts and ends as a fantasy.
 
Another part is the quality of the wood.  With this, there are far more losers than winners.
With the advent of laser cutting,  there is no excuse for poor precision, so if that is a kit's criticism, stay far away.  With laser, die punching is totally obsolete.  You will do better by freeing the parts yourself  using a saw - hand or machine - the difference is how long it takes you.
 
The fittings - often not difficult to substitute.
One new - in fad aspect is plastic printed fittings.   Based on history and precedent  - I make this prediction:  these parts will prove to be very ephemeral.  The very properties of the plastic needed to be melted and squirted into a predetermined stalagmite will also make it prone to ready oxidation and continuing polymerization to a brittle state which will shatter or crumble to powder.  The intensity of any UV light falling on the object will probably affect the half life.
 

I don't imagine that you intend to initiate a contest.  I think that you should want excellent, or at least good instructions.  The best of a group that is all junk -is still junk.
 
One aspect of wooden kits is = the basic process is pretty much the same for either of the two methods for construction: POB  and the evaporating solid carved hull.
How to do the assembly is well covered in how-to books, the wide spread journal articles,  and the build logs here.  You can do an excellent assembly with no instructions from the kit manufacturer. 
The sameness of the process is probably the reason that POB instructions from older kits are a bit general  -  it probably seemed pointless to "sing Kathleen - one more time".
 
The part that you cannot fake with general sources is the plans. They should be detailed, clear, and precise.  
Accuracy is a whole different thing.  If the subject is developed from existing plans, a half model from the original builder, or a table of offsets,  you should expect true accuracy  and any reconstruction should be footnoted as such.
If the subject is one where all that is available is the name, supposed type, and length, breadth, depth, and displacement or cargo capacity:  There is no accuracy.  It starts and ends as a fantasy.
 
Another part is the quality of the wood.  With this, there are far more losers than winners.
With the advent of laser cutting,  there is no excuse for poor precision, so if that is a kit's criticism, stay far away.  With laser, die punching is totally obsolete.  You will do better by freeing the parts yourself  using a saw - hand or machine - the difference is how long it takes you.
 
The fittings - often not difficult to substitute.
One new - in fad aspect is plastic printed fittings.   Based on history and precedent  - I make this prediction:  these parts will prove to be very ephemeral.  The very properties of the plastic needed to be melted and squirted into a predetermined stalagmite will also make it prone to ready oxidation and continuing polymerization to a brittle state which will shatter or crumble to powder.  The intensity of any UV light falling on the object will probably affect the half life.
 

A primer of half saturated shellac is easily applied using a cotton rag - a worn out T shirt or bed sheet - it soaks into the wood.  Using the rag  - no ponds are left on the surface - it does not hide detail.
Indeed, if you had used an open pore wood species like Oak or Walnut, the open pores would still be there.  The application is less involved than using an air brush.  It is quick and simple to use.  It takes many applications of full strength to build any sort of thickness - an application is just a wet layer, not a coat.
Use scrap wood and practice a few times - you will then realize that it is not as complicated as imagined.  You can buff with a Scotch Brite pad when dry - 0000 steel wool is traditional, but the steel shards - not seen, but there - make themselves known when they turn to rust and leave a stain.

I followed up on your introduction of Liquin.  The Liquin fine detail has one characteristic that is counter to what a model ship wants.  It is a gloss product.  The original Liquin is low gloss - which is not great - but better.  The increased viscosity in the light version is produced by the clear carrier solution.  When it evaporates, most of what produces the increased viscosity is gone?  By using tubed artists oils, the concentration of pigment is under your control.  An increased pigment concentration would have an increased viscosity that remains after polymerization.  But now that I think on it:  impasto is not a good approximation of an adzed planking surface.

You got hit by the outer edge of that canister shot.  I was aiming at the general sort of inquiry we get -
 
We in absolute agreement on this.    

 

I used "over coat" trying to describe a last layer.  I think we agree that shellac works well as the last layer?
 
To be too pedantic about it - a stain is actually a semi transparent paint -  so it could go over shellac?  It is pigment particles suspended in a solvent with a binder?
 
A dye is a whole nuther thing.  A dye is single pigment molecules dissolved in a solvent.  No binder, the intent is for the molecules to soak into the wood and change the color.  The grain is unaffected.  The surface is still bare wood.  Using shellac before a dye would be a bad thing to do. It would already be where the dye molecules would go if the shellac was not already blocking them?
 
The careless use of word "stain" to mean changing the color can cause problems for a tyro - which we all were at some point - (and for most things - still are -) but everyone should not have to be a scout -cutting their own new trail and learning the hard way?
 

Should be easy to do.  Just find a tube of artists oils with the shade of pigment that you need.  It may need mixing of two or more.  I just checked Blick's page - Most of their Gamblin 30ml tubes are $9.00.
One of those tubes may last you a lifetime.  Turpentine or mineral spirits for a thinner have a lower cost per volume.
 
I use a lot of brushing lacquer. Certainly not on a model, but to put a thick clear protective layer on my frame patterns - water proof, no smear, thick to stand up to rigorous sanding - it is more Mylar like than just paper, it does not do one thing that I wanted - add a degree of brittleness that a fan of fuzz is not at the abraded edge - still needs frequent Gem blade scraping to see the line.
ANYWAY - lacquer:  too thick, too much shine/gloss for anything but a toy.  The solvent - even the "Green" substitute is a mixture of potential really toxic organic solvents - they make acetone seem like breathing nitrogen for the irritation.   I never would, but if I had to spray lacquer, it would be in a glove box -outside.  The solvent mixture reads like something to use in Death Row - never mind turning whatever lacquer itself into something with a particle size small enough to get into my alveoli.  Even if it is not carcinogenic - layer of it there would impede gas exchange.

I thought that they rules were:
water based acrylics are not compatible with organic solvent based oils.
 
You may have to get back to bare wood.  Trying to make sense of "Coating paper"  - is this a paper model?
 
Anyway - remove the acrylic paint.
Prime with shellac  -
then use oils (enamels)
 
Old school lacquer is in a noxious and aggressive organic solvent.  Very volatile - such that another coat can be applied after 2 hrs.  My initial hypothesis is that the solvent in the lacquer allowed the acrylic layer to interact with the enamel layer.
Why not over coat with shellac instead of an organic solvent based polymerizing oil like linseed  (with a catalyst) = (oil varnish).  You do not need a hard shell for this application.
 
There may be some situations where good money would be spent to get that sort of crinkled finish.  It looks a couple hundred years old.
 

I used the plunge router attachment for a Foredom flex shaft - upside down as a table with a fence - to be able to move the wood (keel) - the 22 degree cit was done using a twist drill bit as the cutter.
For a mass production operation - this would be cost effective - for 100's of keels.  For one off - not so much.
 
I suggest a good pattern on the keel, stem, and sternpost.  The use a very sharp small chisel to do the cut.  Strop often.   Magnification for old eyes.  A fixed piece of wood and a moving rotary tool is going to want to walk - different densities between spring and summer wood makes this more probable.  A fixed cutter and moving work is OK for a straight cut, but the stem is a curve and staying at a perfect tangent is difficult. 
A power tool can too easily stray.  The angle is fixed.
 
Doing it by hand is slower, but more forgiving.  Pieces of scrap can be shaped to match the angle of the frame at the rabbet - lots of them at the ends.   Practice - a lot, first.
 
 

Do you mean ratlines?   There are numerous examples, if this is what you mean.
 
That is a bit eccentric as a way to fabricate a deck.  With something that substantial,  my guess is that it was painted off the ship and then fixed to the beam layer.
If some of the paint is coming debonded from the brass,  probably all of it is going to, so patching may be no real solution. 
I wonder if 100 years is a respectable duration for what was probably enamel (oil) paint on metal?  I think that you can find someone here who has experience with this.
Should you make sure that the brass has more tooth before you repaint?
 
Given that this ship served at the beginning of the 20th century:
It was probably a steel hull?
The stays were probably also steel?  If so, then modern synthetic line can be used for your rigging?
 

The captain and the sailing master were not passive cogs in their sailing machines. 
For exact angles of rake,  you would probably have to exhume one of these officers and ask them.  Even then, you would probably have to specify the exact date,  because there was probably fine tuning based of the season.   For some of this, Horse Shoes and Hand Grenades is sufficient.

This is probably your primary problem.  A quality tool that is doing its job correctly does not perform like yours is. 
There is probably enough information about the various tools and options for rotary work here to make up a novella sized volume.
The possibilities cover micromotors, surplus dental drills, Foredom models ....  you do not have to use junk.
Unfortunately, Dremel has stopped marketing my go to model: 8050. 
Their current market leader models seem to be closer to full size drills.  It looks bulky and awkward.
 
The idea of even contemplating putting a complete hull under a drill press????   You drill the part and then take it to the hull.
 
I think that most house brand benchtop drill presses are all essentially coming off of the Eurotool drl-300.00 line.  You do not want to buy from a supplier who stocks the QA rejects.
 
If getting a semi precise angle is the goal, a stick with a vertical hole that is just non-binding diameter of the bit can be used a drill block guide.
 
For trunnel sized holes, you could go really low cost.  At AliExpress there are a variety of small DC motors with small chucks.
There are DC power supplies with step voltage output. 1.5 to 14 V 2amp - They should be ~$25 .   A motor that is about three fingers long and only needs two small gauge wires can get inside a hull - if you can get your hand in.
 
 
 

As Chris suggests, the discipline that you should consider following is to repair and restore this model to its launch state as closely as possible.
It should also be given a protective case.
 
Any impulse to do "improvements"  should perhaps be given to a new scratch build of another model.  HAMMS has plans for a 1902 four masted barkentine with spars and rigging plans as well as lines.
The price of copies from The S.I. is fairly low.

The stay sharp longer  carbide bits are the wrong type for us.  They are for steel and for use in a precision machine.  The characteristic that makes them hold their edge also makes them brittle.
Hand held - pin vise or a rotary tool - and probably miniature drill press - into wood - involves a bit of flex at the beginning of the bore.  Carbide is not up to this abuse.
 
I don't know what a $30.50 bit can do, but I mainly suspect that the seller is trolling for dupes.
 
I think HHS is the type we want.  Quality steel yields a degree of survival from flex.   Bright is my choice.
I go with domestic manufacturers if given the option.
 
Here is a company that is a supplier - not a manufacturer - but with #70 bits at ~ $1.00 each - it will not cost much to test their products.
https://www.cmlsupply.com/bright-finish/
 
Up scale mills used as a drill press is practical if you do a lot of work with steel too.
We have had an on going vigorous debate about drill press choices.  Do a search in the tool forum for hours of discussion.  I suspect that when a subject has a lot of different favorites as for finding the right answer, that there are a lot of right answers.
The utility of a drill press depends on your style of building.   For some, it is a door stop.  For some, it is an everyday tool.

You got hit by the outer edge of that canister shot.  I was aiming at the general sort of inquiry we get -
 
We in absolute agreement on this.    

 

Sorry to butt in -- HAMMS is the Historic American Merchant Marine Survey.
 They're a branch of the Smithsonian Institution (that's the S.I. part).
 
https://sova.si.edu/record/NMAH.AC.0240
 
https://americanhistory.si.edu/archives
 
The Institution is a great resource.

As Chris suggests, the discipline that you should consider following is to repair and restore this model to its launch state as closely as possible.
It should also be given a protective case.
 
Any impulse to do "improvements"  should perhaps be given to a new scratch build of another model.  HAMMS has plans for a 1902 four masted barkentine with spars and rigging plans as well as lines.
The price of copies from The S.I. is fairly low.

As Chris suggests, the discipline that you should consider following is to repair and restore this model to its launch state as closely as possible.
It should also be given a protective case.
 
Any impulse to do "improvements"  should perhaps be given to a new scratch build of another model.  HAMMS has plans for a 1902 four masted barkentine with spars and rigging plans as well as lines.
The price of copies from The S.I. is fairly low.

I used the plunge router attachment for a Foredom flex shaft - upside down as a table with a fence - to be able to move the wood (keel) - the 22 degree cit was done using a twist drill bit as the cutter.
For a mass production operation - this would be cost effective - for 100's of keels.  For one off - not so much.
 
I suggest a good pattern on the keel, stem, and sternpost.  The use a very sharp small chisel to do the cut.  Strop often.   Magnification for old eyes.  A fixed piece of wood and a moving rotary tool is going to want to walk - different densities between spring and summer wood makes this more probable.  A fixed cutter and moving work is OK for a straight cut, but the stem is a curve and staying at a perfect tangent is difficult. 
A power tool can too easily stray.  The angle is fixed.
 
Doing it by hand is slower, but more forgiving.  Pieces of scrap can be shaped to match the angle of the frame at the rabbet - lots of them at the ends.   Practice - a lot, first.