Jaager

Should you not be able to find ready made casks and have to fabricate them:
Building them over a form would mean having to turn only one master core.
A solid core form would not work - it cannot be removed.
The stock to be turned could be a five piece Jenga type assembly - four outer pieces and a square center piece.
The form can be turned at the end of a longer five piece stick.  Dowels, pins, or finish nails used to keep everything in one piece.
The turning may require gluing the five with a glue that can be reversed.  PVA - Iso-OH  or hide glue - hot ethanol  or maybe Duco - acetone.
Saran Wrap.
After the staves are in place and bound by the hoops, the square center of the form can be pulled out.
The two opposing outer sections that are the same width as the core, be moved into the center and pulled out.
Then the last two popped lose and pulled out.
The staves can be paper or 3x5 card material.
 
A power drill makes for a low cost lathe, but they do not come with 4 jaw chucks, so holding the square stock would take some work.
 

Should you not be able to find ready made casks and have to fabricate them:
Building them over a form would mean having to turn only one master core.
A solid core form would not work - it cannot be removed.
The stock to be turned could be a five piece Jenga type assembly - four outer pieces and a square center piece.
The form can be turned at the end of a longer five piece stick.  Dowels, pins, or finish nails used to keep everything in one piece.
The turning may require gluing the five with a glue that can be reversed.  PVA - Iso-OH  or hide glue - hot ethanol  or maybe Duco - acetone.
Saran Wrap.
After the staves are in place and bound by the hoops, the square center of the form can be pulled out.
The two opposing outer sections that are the same width as the core, be moved into the center and pulled out.
Then the last two popped lose and pulled out.
The staves can be paper or 3x5 card material.
 
A power drill makes for a low cost lathe, but they do not come with 4 jaw chucks, so holding the square stock would take some work.
 

I doubt that these will work as well as is wished.
 
Do a search on Amazon for non-sterile Penrose drains.
 

Pierre,
 
H.Hahn drew up plans for the class - Roebuck 1774 - they are 1:98 - they are available for sale.  A Web search should bring up a link.
Given the level of quality in an Aeropiccola kit - there should be more than enough additional detail - beyond what Aero plans provide.
 
As for instructions - there are more than a few books covering POB kit construction.
The kit build log forum here should provide any how-to possibly needed.
 
Just guessing here,  but I predict the following:
The number of moulds provided by the kit will not be sufficient to build a proper hull.
The wood will be brittle -  this not being a result of the age of the kit - this is because poor quality wood was what the kit originally provided.
You will probably need to add more moulds - or use fillers.   All new and better quality wood purchase probably necessary.
 
A 44 gun frigate is a complex and difficult subject.   It has all of the difficulties of a 74 gun ship - the 74 just has 2-4 times more of it  OR a 100 gun ship which has 4-8 times more.
Kit builders who come from a plastic background often have an unrealistic expectation for what the provided instructions contain.  The more recent kits from select companies are becoming more hand holding in nature.  The older kits, especially the pioneers like Aeropiccola  were a lot more -you're on your own -good luck!  Instruction books and journals were much more necessary.
 
A cutter, sloop, schooner, or brig would probably be a more friendly next step.

Now that Johnny has mentioned color:
 
Lee Valley can provide flakes in 1/4 lb bags for less than $12.00  in three tints
 
https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/tools/supplies/finishing/finishes/76311-shellacs?item=56Z4028
 
light yellow and amber both come from Zinsser in small tins that are in solution.  This is probably the more convenient option.
 
Should you wish to reversibly darken the bottom,  using the dark amber (garnet?) flakes may provide a richer looking option.
An advantage is that should you decide that it is too dark, it can be made to go away using an alcohol soaked rag.
 
Actually, it is water that leaves a white ring.  Condensation outside a cold glass of anything will do it.  Shellac is probably not the best choice for furniture that can have stuff sitting on it.

As a literalist,  a sealer is used on open pore wood species to fill the pores to produce a smooth finish - on furniture.
For a ship model, it is to do a self favor if open pore wood species are avoided altogether for components that are not hidden.
 
Shellac is an excellent primer as well as a finish.
The first coat - the primer coat - should be diluted 1:1 with shellac thinner.
 
Shellac can produce a deep gloss finish if a serious number of thin coats are applied.  We do not usually want that.
A couple of finish coats is probably enough.
A fine abrasive - like a Scotch Brite pad can dull the sheen.  If it is too scratched, just apply another layer of shellac.
It is easy enough to do and pieces of old worn out T-shirts are free.  

The heel of the port F! would start a few feet on the stb. side of the keel.  The stb. F! would butt against it and be shorter.
The next frame would have the stb. F1 be the longer one.
 
Ignoring the occasional exception,  I see three options for the F1/F3 frame.
1 - cross chock  over the keel  - several variations - the French had some complicated joinery in some ships
2 - half floor  -  gets interesting at the ends if it is an actual ship - easier to use Cant frames.  In a model, the opposite obtains.
3 - long arm/short arm.   
 
Using half floors really reduces the length of the F1 timbers.

To guess, given the evidence above:
drift = a free floating rod in a hole that does not go all the way thru either the keel / floor or the keelson / floor?
a heavy duty locator pin?
A bolt - which is also listed - would have a head at one end and threads for a nut on the other? 
 
For your F1 between floors:
The floors are long - usually ~ 60% of the beam.
It seems to be forbidden - since forever - for the heels of F1 port to meet F1 stb. in the middle of the keel.
It could be F1 long arm/F1 short arm - alternating.
My compulsion would be to use a half floor instead - a floor timber that is ~25-30% of the beam.  Have the scarph (old definition = side to side) be the same length.  So those F1 would be longer - but not as long as the long arm/short arm option.
 

If you are only going to use it for wood,  you might consider going with just good enough.
 
My process requires a lot of holes. The holes have to be 90 degrees.  Most all of them are #70.  Top end is #50.
I use the Otto Frei version of a Eurotool DRL 300.00.  It has done what I have asked of it.
 
The basic unit is an economy machine that is sold all over the place.
It was $85 when I bought it.  Most units seem to be ~ $120 now.  
I am surprised to see it for sale at Rio Grande for $70.  I expect jewelry suppliers to stock the mfg output with the better QA and the bargain outfits to have the so-so units.
It sounds too good to be true.   I have been considering Rio Grande to be a quality outfit.
A good X-Y table will cost about as much as the drill - you do not want an X-Y table with a lot of slop.
A foot operated momentary switch will add to the total cost.

If you are only going to use it for wood,  you might consider going with just good enough.
 
My process requires a lot of holes. The holes have to be 90 degrees.  Most all of them are #70.  Top end is #50.
I use the Otto Frei version of a Eurotool DRL 300.00.  It has done what I have asked of it.
 
The basic unit is an economy machine that is sold all over the place.
It was $85 when I bought it.  Most units seem to be ~ $120 now.  
I am surprised to see it for sale at Rio Grande for $70.  I expect jewelry suppliers to stock the mfg output with the better QA and the bargain outfits to have the so-so units.
It sounds too good to be true.   I have been considering Rio Grande to be a quality outfit.
A good X-Y table will cost about as much as the drill - you do not want an X-Y table with a lot of slop.
A foot operated momentary switch will add to the total cost.

I doubt that these will work as well as is wished.
 
Do a search on Amazon for non-sterile Penrose drains.
 

My bias towards POF warped my view.  I probably would not have guessed this.   It does explain what is on display.
 
Imagining how I would approach a model of this vessel,  I cannot see trying to replicate the actual vessel's construction.  Getting the outside done correctly would be challenge enough.   I am totally dedicated to POF,  but some hulls just look better fully planked.

Well that explains why common nautical words - like futtock always get marked as being misspelled.
I have been thinking that this site had selected the wrong dictionary.

@druxey  not on paper if you are correct.    But, if you look at the Navy Board framing models, the top edge and bottom edge of the overlap band look to me like they would serve the same purpose.

My bias towards POF warped my view.  I probably would not have guessed this.   It does explain what is on display.
 
Imagining how I would approach a model of this vessel,  I cannot see trying to replicate the actual vessel's construction.  Getting the outside done correctly would be challenge enough.   I am totally dedicated to POF,  but some hulls just look better fully planked.

My bias towards POF warped my view.  I probably would not have guessed this.   It does explain what is on display.
 
Imagining how I would approach a model of this vessel,  I cannot see trying to replicate the actual vessel's construction.  Getting the outside done correctly would be challenge enough.   I am totally dedicated to POF,  but some hulls just look better fully planked.

The heel of the port F! would start a few feet on the stb. side of the keel.  The stb. F! would butt against it and be shorter.
The next frame would have the stb. F1 be the longer one.
 
Ignoring the occasional exception,  I see three options for the F1/F3 frame.
1 - cross chock  over the keel  - several variations - the French had some complicated joinery in some ships
2 - half floor  -  gets interesting at the ends if it is an actual ship - easier to use Cant frames.  In a model, the opposite obtains.
3 - long arm/short arm.   
 
Using half floors really reduces the length of the F1 timbers.

To guess, given the evidence above:
drift = a free floating rod in a hole that does not go all the way thru either the keel / floor or the keelson / floor?
a heavy duty locator pin?
A bolt - which is also listed - would have a head at one end and threads for a nut on the other? 
 
For your F1 between floors:
The floors are long - usually ~ 60% of the beam.
It seems to be forbidden - since forever - for the heels of F1 port to meet F1 stb. in the middle of the keel.
It could be F1 long arm/F1 short arm - alternating.
My compulsion would be to use a half floor instead - a floor timber that is ~25-30% of the beam.  Have the scarph (old definition = side to side) be the same length.  So those F1 would be longer - but not as long as the long arm/short arm option.
 

Going by the instructions in Deane   so at least up until 1670:
The Body plan shape creation was only done three times during the design.
The three were placed on the WL plan and battens used to define the run.
The forward or aft cross sections could be moved to get the sort of entry and exit needed to theoretically favor speed or stability or capacity.
Doing a mental extraction from the above premise:
The complete Body plan was derived by plotting the points from the WL plan. 
The Diagonal plan was important to confirm that there were no problems in the run in the swimming body.
 
I am suspecting that those who were writing an advocacy of math formulas over shipwright intuition did not gain control until about 1700.  This being limited to English practice.

The heel of the port F! would start a few feet on the stb. side of the keel.  The stb. F! would butt against it and be shorter.
The next frame would have the stb. F1 be the longer one.
 
Ignoring the occasional exception,  I see three options for the F1/F3 frame.
1 - cross chock  over the keel  - several variations - the French had some complicated joinery in some ships
2 - half floor  -  gets interesting at the ends if it is an actual ship - easier to use Cant frames.  In a model, the opposite obtains.
3 - long arm/short arm.   
 
Using half floors really reduces the length of the F1 timbers.

To guess, given the evidence above:
drift = a free floating rod in a hole that does not go all the way thru either the keel / floor or the keelson / floor?
a heavy duty locator pin?
A bolt - which is also listed - would have a head at one end and threads for a nut on the other? 
 
For your F1 between floors:
The floors are long - usually ~ 60% of the beam.
It seems to be forbidden - since forever - for the heels of F1 port to meet F1 stb. in the middle of the keel.
It could be F1 long arm/F1 short arm - alternating.
My compulsion would be to use a half floor instead - a floor timber that is ~25-30% of the beam.  Have the scarph (old definition = side to side) be the same length.  So those F1 would be longer - but not as long as the long arm/short arm option.
 

No experimental data, but for natural fibers:  linen and cotton  -   an alcohol dye solution should work as well as an aqueous dye. 
It should be as dyed as it is going to be - just as soon as it has soaked in - that is fairly close to immediately.
A continuous pulley set up  -  feed spool - down to a pulley in the alcohol solution - back up to a take up reel - would probably work for a long rope.
 
For man-made synthetic polymer line,  my guess is that it might not take at all.

I was thinking that the burl would make any concern about grain orientation relative to part orientation = moot.  But what is there would be a large enough figure that it would appear to be uniform - that is - no obvious grain - certainly no end grain.
If the primary wood gatherer was known, I wonder if a mutually beneficial deal was possible?  The source could get income from otherwise useless sticks, and we could get stock at a bargain price.

In post #35 you show a piece of Briar.  I have it in mind that this would be excellent for deadeyes and blocks.  Since you have the wood, what do you find? 
My understanding is that the part that is used for pipe bodies comes from root burls.  My speculation is that there is a trunk that probably has straight grain, but is just as hard as the root wood.  I wonder if the trunk is discarded?  If so, being trash, it should have a low purchase price. 
The plant is a shrub, so the trunk should not be all that thick.  For deadeyes and blocks it does not have to be very large.

Well that explains why common nautical words - like futtock always get marked as being misspelled.
I have been thinking that this site had selected the wrong dictionary.