Jaager

OcCre HMS Beagle is 1:60.
Cotton is not a fiber that can come close to scale sails as a fabric at 60 times smaller.
No cloth fabric that is a practical choice will fit to scale.   You have to be willfully delusional to see the OcCre sails as scale realistic,  if academic and historically accurate is your standard,  but that is not the majority standard.
 
The paper that is used as covering on aircraft models - one brand is SilkSpan - is more realistic.
For a kit model, this is best done as a scratch addition.  It is not easily done well as an assembly line product.
The cost of materials probably comes closer to $5 per model, when spread over the number of projects that the minimum size of each component will serve.   Of course, the cost of your labor will exceed $50, even if  minimum wage is the basis. 
 
For most ship models,  if you do manage to sell it, the return would probably barely cover the cost of materials - if that.  It requires real artistic skill, an outside reputation, and ruthless efficiency plus economy to get any return on your labor.
 
Plastic models are far more focused on fine details and an exacting finish than with a model made of wood.  Because it is wood,  if the original subject was also wood,  doing much more than what is minimally sufficient for a finish is lost to view and overpowered by the natural material.
 

OcCre HMS Beagle is 1:60.
Cotton is not a fiber that can come close to scale sails as a fabric at 60 times smaller.
No cloth fabric that is a practical choice will fit to scale.   You have to be willfully delusional to see the OcCre sails as scale realistic,  if academic and historically accurate is your standard,  but that is not the majority standard.
 
The paper that is used as covering on aircraft models - one brand is SilkSpan - is more realistic.
For a kit model, this is best done as a scratch addition.  It is not easily done well as an assembly line product.
The cost of materials probably comes closer to $5 per model, when spread over the number of projects that the minimum size of each component will serve.   Of course, the cost of your labor will exceed $50, even if  minimum wage is the basis. 
 
For most ship models,  if you do manage to sell it, the return would probably barely cover the cost of materials - if that.  It requires real artistic skill, an outside reputation, and ruthless efficiency plus economy to get any return on your labor.
 
Plastic models are far more focused on fine details and an exacting finish than with a model made of wood.  Because it is wood,  if the original subject was also wood,  doing much more than what is minimally sufficient for a finish is lost to view and overpowered by the natural material.
 

Probably better if it did not tilt. 
Once the piece is freed from the stock, another tool could be used to get a bevel and probably do a better job of it.  The end grain of plywood is messy to work with.
 
A scroll saw blade has an unfortunate up/down action.  The blade up can lift the work.
 
The only use that I have for my 9" bench bandsaw is to do scroll cutting.
No up action.  I use a 1/4" blade - it lasts much longer than a 1/8" at only a slight loss in arc. A back and fill cut works as well as a continuous one.
The blade has significant set - the kerf is more - the cut face is ragged - so not too close to the line. ( a sanding drum does a better job of finishing anyway)
The mold could be 1/4" ply or 1/4" solid wood  as it is no problem for a bandsaw to cut
A thicker mold => better planking support
I replaced the guides with a Carter Stabilizer - the blade swings like a hinged door
 
I bet that 1/4" Pine would work well as mold material.
 

OcCre HMS Beagle is 1:60.
Cotton is not a fiber that can come close to scale sails as a fabric at 60 times smaller.
No cloth fabric that is a practical choice will fit to scale.   You have to be willfully delusional to see the OcCre sails as scale realistic,  if academic and historically accurate is your standard,  but that is not the majority standard.
 
The paper that is used as covering on aircraft models - one brand is SilkSpan - is more realistic.
For a kit model, this is best done as a scratch addition.  It is not easily done well as an assembly line product.
The cost of materials probably comes closer to $5 per model, when spread over the number of projects that the minimum size of each component will serve.   Of course, the cost of your labor will exceed $50, even if  minimum wage is the basis. 
 
For most ship models,  if you do manage to sell it, the return would probably barely cover the cost of materials - if that.  It requires real artistic skill, an outside reputation, and ruthless efficiency plus economy to get any return on your labor.
 
Plastic models are far more focused on fine details and an exacting finish than with a model made of wood.  Because it is wood,  if the original subject was also wood,  doing much more than what is minimally sufficient for a finish is lost to view and overpowered by the natural material.
 

It also may be a typo -  maybe turned up was intended?  Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

To focus on the part of this that I find to be worth real interest - How much of it is good for building a serious model? ....
So Sutton Ho is from between 400 and 800 - given the burial mound bit - probably closer to the 400 part?
There are no definitive lines.   Any plans available from the current operation would be a guess? 
Yet another replica aimed at tourists and not advertising that it is just a likely to have as much wrong as correct?
 
The construction technology is invaluable from an academic perspective.

It also may be a typo -  maybe turned up was intended?  Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

To focus on the part of this that I find to be worth real interest - How much of it is good for building a serious model? ....
So Sutton Ho is from between 400 and 800 - given the burial mound bit - probably closer to the 400 part?
There are no definitive lines.   Any plans available from the current operation would be a guess? 
Yet another replica aimed at tourists and not advertising that it is just a likely to have as much wrong as correct?
 
The construction technology is invaluable from an academic perspective.

It also may be a typo -  maybe turned up was intended?  Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

It also may be a typo -  maybe turned up was intended?  Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

It also may be a typo -  maybe turned up was intended?  Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

To focus on the part of this that I find to be worth real interest - How much of it is good for building a serious model? ....
So Sutton Ho is from between 400 and 800 - given the burial mound bit - probably closer to the 400 part?
There are no definitive lines.   Any plans available from the current operation would be a guess? 
Yet another replica aimed at tourists and not advertising that it is just a likely to have as much wrong as correct?
 
The construction technology is invaluable from an academic perspective.

I am guessing that you will be doing this POB?
If so, then what you are naming "the frames"  are named "bulkheads" in the POB world.  What they actually are = moulds or molds.   
 
Laser cutting makes sense if you are setting up to make 100 identical kits and want a convenient and economical way to get multiple identical parts.  Unless you are doing the laser programing for computer reasons instead of just tool to get model parts,  the time spent is difficult to justify to make one copy.
 
If you do not have a motorized scroll saw, for one model and a hull that is not likely to have a lot of moulds, a hand operated fret saw or coping saw will do an excellent job of freeing the moulds from a sheet of wood or plywood.  Sanding blocks will get you to the line.  You can also use thicker stock than a laser will want to vaporize.
 
Get the patterns by tracing what is on the plans if 1:1 or use a scanner -  If the scale is to be different, there are Xerox machines that reduce or enlarge -  or scan the plans of the moulds into your computer and use a drawing program to change to scale and print the patterns out.  PS in the cloud has a <one month free trial if you do not own the necessary program.
 

Phil,
I was pretty sure that it is a labor intensive exercise - but the process being described above does not sound like it is fire and forget either.   I liked WordPerfect. (I also liked PicturePublisher.)    I have found MSWord to be more complex than I care to deal with.  WordPad is fairly basic  and does as much as I need - when I mix text with pictures.  For just text, EditPad is enough.   WordPad does not have many options when it comes to save formats.  I doubt any of them offer any sort of compression.   My log's .RTF file is 190 Meg.   I  did not consider that MSWord could save as PDF,  but I am not surprised.  I did not even install MSOffice.  But then, I still only have a land line.  Who knew my fate was to go from cutting edge to dinosaur?
 
Wow!  I just used CloudConvert and it turned a 190 Meg .rtf  into a 4Meg .pdf.
 

If it is your own log that you want a copy of,  I have a copy of mine by doing this:
Use WordPad to compose the log.   The .TXT   from it can be Copy Pasted from WordPad to this site.
A file of JPEG can be used as the source for what gets Saved in the WordPad document and a place marker in the TXT file can mark which and where the JPEG go for the site log.
 
I just checked and the TXT here can be Copy Pasted into a WordPad document and the images can be also.
The  from you to the site part would not take very much more effort than composing and formatting directly on the site.
The  from the site to you  copying of another author's work will be a tad tedious,  but it does offer the choice of omitting 3rd party comments and anything else that is unwanted.
 
A WordPad file with images tends to be a large one.  I wonder if a .RTF file can be converted to a .PDF file using one of the free Web sites that offer this?
 
 

I am guessing that you will be doing this POB?
If so, then what you are naming "the frames"  are named "bulkheads" in the POB world.  What they actually are = moulds or molds.   
 
Laser cutting makes sense if you are setting up to make 100 identical kits and want a convenient and economical way to get multiple identical parts.  Unless you are doing the laser programing for computer reasons instead of just tool to get model parts,  the time spent is difficult to justify to make one copy.
 
If you do not have a motorized scroll saw, for one model and a hull that is not likely to have a lot of moulds, a hand operated fret saw or coping saw will do an excellent job of freeing the moulds from a sheet of wood or plywood.  Sanding blocks will get you to the line.  You can also use thicker stock than a laser will want to vaporize.
 
Get the patterns by tracing what is on the plans if 1:1 or use a scanner -  If the scale is to be different, there are Xerox machines that reduce or enlarge -  or scan the plans of the moulds into your computer and use a drawing program to change to scale and print the patterns out.  PS in the cloud has a <one month free trial if you do not own the necessary program.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives.
 
A bend is a pair of frames.  The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. 
 
Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends.
 I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend.
I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try.
 
Station  =  1680mm       A station is "always" the middle of a bend. 
Room and Space =  560mm
 
For POF - with frames on display:
Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made:   Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model
 
560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3")   so a 2/3 room  1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame  a bit thin.
An 8" frame = ~ 200mm
560mm - 200mm -200mm =  160mm    (6.3")  space.   Close enough to be attractive
 
Hahn style:  all bends,  frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted.   Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks,  bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong).
Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape -  the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined.   With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used.  The appearance is a  bit snaggle toothed to me.
 
 
My favorite now is Navall framing.    It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 
560mm R&S
All of the space is in the F1 frame.
560mm / 2 = 280mm  (11")    so the timbers are 280mm wide.
Floor - F2 - short Top  is all wood  and 280mm wide
Deadwood - F1 - long Top  is also 280mm 
Deadwood - F1    has a space
F1 - long Top    has a space.
 
I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use.  I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this.
Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong.  The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done.
 
Small vessel  I  would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot 
The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale.
The result looks like the model framing in post #35 -  except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames.   With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is.
 
It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top.   If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.
 

Harbor Freight has an electric 14" for $50.  I do not see a current generic 20% off coupon but if they have one soon, it is $40.   No idea about how long one would last, but I did use one to bisect a Bradford Pear butt after a wind storm a couple of years ago.  Two feet is my preferred length.  A bisecting cut would be easier if the bole is attached to the inground roots.  Significant loss the kerf, but much easier to manipulate on a bandsaw table.   Doing it free hand is an Evel Knievel sort of operation with the possible kickback. Slow and light pressure.

Melaleuca quinquenervia  - I had not come across this species until you mentioned it above.  If the pores are small, you may be golden.
 
Another species local to you is loquot -  Eriobotrya japonica -  which is in the Rosaceae family - as are Apple, Pear, Plum, Peach, and as a wood good for miniature carving Hawthorne.   The tree is also listed as Japanese Plum.  
 
 
Holly is about the only wood that is as white as it is.  It does not grow nearly large enough to be used for deck planks on a real ship.  Some of the species used were Pine and Oak.   The model scale appropriate wood that comes close in color are the above mentioned Birch and Beech - as well as Maple.   It looks to me although the price for white Holly has started to enter the realm of the absurd.
 
The Holly species in Europe are not snow white.  They are closer to Birch and Beech (I believe).  As with my adventure with Sycamore, I think there was a translation misunderstanding between British publications and US readers as to which sort of Holly is an accurate decking.
 
There are varieties of Holly here that are not white and Holly that is infected with Blue mold is usually a grey color.  These would be a better color for decking.  The mold effect on the wood is only cosmetic, so that wood is still perfect for most any of our uses. Unfortunately, they seem to be treated as being trash. 
 
Now, a white Holly deck on a model is generally seen as being an ideal and something special.  If that is your view, "Never mind".

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

Of late, there has been some interest in the history of the first ship model kits.  Yours may be from a kit or scratch from McCann's plans, but it is probably one of the first  sizable generation (or close to it) of ship models built by someone not a professional model maker or an actual ship builder or a seaman.   It probably has value as an historical example.  It looks well done in any instance.  When it is back to its prime condition, if you do not have one already, it will want to live in a protective case. 

This is my own biased opinion.  I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it.
 
What you have there is decorator kitsch.  It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term.  It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint.   That said,  it probably has value as its own thing.  I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique.  If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows?
 
If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it.  It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general.   What you pay will be lost money. 
 
If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated.  Consider it time spent doing something for fun.   You will want to return it to what it was.  There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have.  Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material.  The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can.
 
If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale  that will help with how to build your own. 
 

Of late, there has been some interest in the history of the first ship model kits.  Yours may be from a kit or scratch from McCann's plans, but it is probably one of the first  sizable generation (or close to it) of ship models built by someone not a professional model maker or an actual ship builder or a seaman.   It probably has value as an historical example.  It looks well done in any instance.  When it is back to its prime condition, if you do not have one already, it will want to live in a protective case.