Jaager

Theory =  full size paint does not need as fine a pigment grind and for reasons of cost probably does not.  At miniature scales, a close look probably resembles a gravel road.
 
I am pretty sure that @Bob Cleek has been espousing the use of premier quality arts oils - both water based and organic solvent based - the stuff in tubes - as the whole of what is needed.  
Infinite dilution,  a flattening agent can be added, for oil base,  polymerizing oils can be added,  these also have a catalyst to speed polymerization.  I would think that even the smallest tubes would last much longer than a mini-bottle of pre-mixed model paints.
 
Two solutions:
a primer coat of 1:1 diluted shellac followed by a full strength coat would provide an ideal base - plus mask any of Nature's glitches in the wood.
(Not sure about silicon from lubricant mis-spread being where it shouldn't = fish eye.)
 
After the final pre-sanding - paint the wood with water  or  water with 10-20% white PVA - then sand again.  This gets the water caused swelling out of the way.

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.

For POB,  looking at the complicated - elaborate - time involved  clamps in post #1,  I set out to imagine a less involved way to get a similar force.
 
I came up with an "L" shaped threaded rod.  The short arm would fit into a hole drilled in the mould.  There would need to be a series of holes.  They would need to be drilled before attaching the mould to the spine.
On the long arm:  a bar of wood with a hole to slide down the rod , a washer, a wing nut.  There may need to be wedge shaped shims under the bar to get direct pressure at 90 degrees on the plank.
 
The last plank would need another sort of clamp.
 
POF with spaces could use a straight rod  - a bar inside the hull with a hole and washer/ nut  at the inside end.

For POB,  looking at the complicated - elaborate - time involved  clamps in post #1,  I set out to imagine a less involved way to get a similar force.
 
I came up with an "L" shaped threaded rod.  The short arm would fit into a hole drilled in the mould.  There would need to be a series of holes.  They would need to be drilled before attaching the mould to the spine.
On the long arm:  a bar of wood with a hole to slide down the rod , a washer, a wing nut.  There may need to be wedge shaped shims under the bar to get direct pressure at 90 degrees on the plank.
 
The last plank would need another sort of clamp.
 
POF with spaces could use a straight rod  - a bar inside the hull with a hole and washer/ nut  at the inside end.

For POB,  looking at the complicated - elaborate - time involved  clamps in post #1,  I set out to imagine a less involved way to get a similar force.
 
I came up with an "L" shaped threaded rod.  The short arm would fit into a hole drilled in the mould.  There would need to be a series of holes.  They would need to be drilled before attaching the mould to the spine.
On the long arm:  a bar of wood with a hole to slide down the rod , a washer, a wing nut.  There may need to be wedge shaped shims under the bar to get direct pressure at 90 degrees on the plank.
 
The last plank would need another sort of clamp.
 
POF with spaces could use a straight rod  - a bar inside the hull with a hole and washer/ nut  at the inside end.

Well, your in luck with a whaleboat, since they were pretty much only two colors, black and white. Sometimes the inboard was painted gray, but that's just black and white mixed together. (Some carried a brightly colored sheer strake for long-range identification from the mother ship, as well.) 
 
Any of the modeling paints would be fine. Seal the wood with clear ("white") shellac and then paint. Some use a sanding basecoat and then a finish top coat. The sanding base coat will permit a very fine finish which is required for the proper scale appearance. 
 
Review the painting section of the forum. It's full of good information on the subject.
 

You could always lower the river instead of raising the bridge.  What I mean is seat the floors on the keel and fit small individual fillers between them on top of the keel.
The cross chock can sit on the keel also.  The piece between then becomes deadwood.   Since a model does not need to have water being able to communicate P to S, 
 
I prefer to have the deadwood fill the entire space between the top of the keel and the bottom of the keelson.   The deadwood can be dyed black.   I believe that in some vessels there was a one inch gap for the water and the rest of the space had chocks.  It would look like continuous deadwood.  This sort of detail was something that the shipwrights would do without it being on the plan.  There were other chocks between the frames all the way to the sheer.  Again, not something a designer would need to draw.

Thanks,
 
The general idea has been bouncing in my memory bank for a while.
I first envisioned the general concept as a way to use a Pine mould for a cast hull.
I read a sort of recent posting by someone scratch building a steel ship with a lot of trumblehome - for an RC project. 
A standard single cast plastic (epoxy?) shell would have been ideal for the model, but a solid carved hull form would not work.
The standard carved hull method = layers (lamination) based on WL lines would not work.
My default approach - = layers (sandwiches) based on the Body plans stations would only work if the two sections at the deadflat  were three parts to allow removal. ( Unfortunate, since the carving (shaping/sanding) is so much easier, faster and an easier way to achieve  accuracy . )
But Buttock lines layers would work.  Three lamination would do the job.  The center ( keel profile ) layer easier to extract.
Too bad that I have limited my interest to the core of the wooden era 1650 - 1860.  It would be an interesting experiment.

Thanks,
 
The general idea has been bouncing in my memory bank for a while.
I first envisioned the general concept as a way to use a Pine mould for a cast hull.
I read a sort of recent posting by someone scratch building a steel ship with a lot of trumblehome - for an RC project. 
A standard single cast plastic (epoxy?) shell would have been ideal for the model, but a solid carved hull form would not work.
The standard carved hull method = layers (lamination) based on WL lines would not work.
My default approach - = layers (sandwiches) based on the Body plans stations would only work if the two sections at the deadflat  were three parts to allow removal. ( Unfortunate, since the carving (shaping/sanding) is so much easier, faster and an easier way to achieve  accuracy . )
But Buttock lines layers would work.  Three lamination would do the job.  The center ( keel profile ) layer easier to extract.
Too bad that I have limited my interest to the core of the wooden era 1650 - 1860.  It would be an interesting experiment.

Thanks,
 
The general idea has been bouncing in my memory bank for a while.
I first envisioned the general concept as a way to use a Pine mould for a cast hull.
I read a sort of recent posting by someone scratch building a steel ship with a lot of trumblehome - for an RC project. 
A standard single cast plastic (epoxy?) shell would have been ideal for the model, but a solid carved hull form would not work.
The standard carved hull method = layers (lamination) based on WL lines would not work.
My default approach - = layers (sandwiches) based on the Body plans stations would only work if the two sections at the deadflat  were three parts to allow removal. ( Unfortunate, since the carving (shaping/sanding) is so much easier, faster and an easier way to achieve  accuracy . )
But Buttock lines layers would work.  Three lamination would do the job.  The center ( keel profile ) layer easier to extract.
Too bad that I have limited my interest to the core of the wooden era 1650 - 1860.  It would be an interesting experiment.

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.
 

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.
 

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.