Jaager

You may consider using a 2 inch thick "brick" of rigid Styrofoam wall insulation.  PVC glue it to a plywood base and punch holes for your tools.  Having multiple bricks - each oriented to a general task -  they store on a shelf.  Sharp pointed or edged tools are held vertical and the material does not affect the edge.

I was envisioning this key first step:  the garboard and first belt of planking that would then be fixed in place using the floor timbers - as having its shape determined by the bending of the boards.  A model can mimic what is thought to be shape of the original.  Using it to predict   what could have been allowed by full size planking pushed to its extreme    is not likely to be a good technique.   I see that assumptions and fudge factors come into play with a model.  I was being somewhat absolute about the input for a true experiment in possible hull conformations allowed by the original methods.  
I see models as being excellent at replication.  I see them as being limited as being predictors of the behavior of full size materials.
 
Shipbuilding in the Age of Sail was entirely a series of one off experiments that had no real controls.  The bad practices were obvious enough.  Getting a hull with maximum efficiency was something that was only chased. 

I was envisioning this key first step:  the garboard and first belt of planking that would then be fixed in place using the floor timbers - as having its shape determined by the bending of the boards.  A model can mimic what is thought to be shape of the original.  Using it to predict   what could have been allowed by full size planking pushed to its extreme    is not likely to be a good technique.   I see that assumptions and fudge factors come into play with a model.  I was being somewhat absolute about the input for a true experiment in possible hull conformations allowed by the original methods.  
I see models as being excellent at replication.  I see them as being limited as being predictors of the behavior of full size materials.
 
Shipbuilding in the Age of Sail was entirely a series of one off experiments that had no real controls.  The bad practices were obvious enough.  Getting a hull with maximum efficiency was something that was only chased. 

You may consider using a 2 inch thick "brick" of rigid Styrofoam wall insulation.  PVC glue it to a plywood base and punch holes for your tools.  Having multiple bricks - each oriented to a general task -  they store on a shelf.  Sharp pointed or edged tools are held vertical and the material does not affect the edge.

If the model was built the same way as the actual ship was built,  a free floating shell  - the result would probably be unreliable at best.  The material - wood - is the same - more or less.  The bending and other physical characteristics would not scale.   Since Nature's math is Calculus, the differences due to scale would be more than a linear proportion.  Trying to use the technique at scale as a predictor of full size behavior  would probably yield a failure.
 
If the full size shape was drawn, and scaled,  and molds or frames made to that shape,  these would be able to provide for a model that Was an accurate representation.
 
England was using plans at this time -  the method used was one of various derivatives of whole molding.  The example with three frames and the stern structure is what was used to get the mathematical data on paper in whole molding.  The batten part that came next was art and finesse for getting the lines.  Those preliminary whole molding plans were probably enough to get the bureaucracy off their backs.  Rather than try to get wood to match some planed shape, they took what the wood allowed them.  Their battens were full sized on the ways, instead of slivers on a drawing board.   It would be constant frustration for the customer that was a bureaucracy wanting cookie cutter predictability.   It is frustration for those who wish to replicate   in miniature   what they built .
 
Whole molding uses very basic geometric tools - straight lines and arcs.  These guild based shipwrights were probably doing basically the same things.  Instead of committing it to paper before they started,  they probably did it either in their heads, or did drawings that were one off for each part and that were discarded after use.   My bet is that the plans version of whole molding came from someone breaking the rules and committing to paper what the guild had been doing for quite a while.   It just took a Royal to get too involved in the actual work for someone to gain profit by revealing guild secrets.
 
For the actual ships at the time and in the place at issue here,  we have no evidence that significantly sophisticated plans were used.  The problem is:  it is necessary to have these sort of plans to build a ship model that is an actual 'model'.   It is a great gift from Ab Hoving and to our advantage that a way has come to us to generate plans for these otherwise lost vessels that way produces a reasonable approximation of their form and shape..  
 
About Ab Hoving's place in this:  To repeat myself, the skills and mental prospective required to be a pathfinder is different from the telephone sanitizers who follow on to tighten things up,  apply the polish, and make a big deal of deficiencies the original path did not include.  Pathfinders deserve honors and respect.  They are rare and cannot be willed into existence.  The education system is geared to produce an endless supply of telephone sanitizers.  Their contributions are obviously useful but are only incremental.

If the model was built the same way as the actual ship was built,  a free floating shell  - the result would probably be unreliable at best.  The material - wood - is the same - more or less.  The bending and other physical characteristics would not scale.   Since Nature's math is Calculus, the differences due to scale would be more than a linear proportion.  Trying to use the technique at scale as a predictor of full size behavior  would probably yield a failure.
 
If the full size shape was drawn, and scaled,  and molds or frames made to that shape,  these would be able to provide for a model that Was an accurate representation.
 
England was using plans at this time -  the method used was one of various derivatives of whole molding.  The example with three frames and the stern structure is what was used to get the mathematical data on paper in whole molding.  The batten part that came next was art and finesse for getting the lines.  Those preliminary whole molding plans were probably enough to get the bureaucracy off their backs.  Rather than try to get wood to match some planed shape, they took what the wood allowed them.  Their battens were full sized on the ways, instead of slivers on a drawing board.   It would be constant frustration for the customer that was a bureaucracy wanting cookie cutter predictability.   It is frustration for those who wish to replicate   in miniature   what they built .
 
Whole molding uses very basic geometric tools - straight lines and arcs.  These guild based shipwrights were probably doing basically the same things.  Instead of committing it to paper before they started,  they probably did it either in their heads, or did drawings that were one off for each part and that were discarded after use.   My bet is that the plans version of whole molding came from someone breaking the rules and committing to paper what the guild had been doing for quite a while.   It just took a Royal to get too involved in the actual work for someone to gain profit by revealing guild secrets.
 
For the actual ships at the time and in the place at issue here,  we have no evidence that significantly sophisticated plans were used.  The problem is:  it is necessary to have these sort of plans to build a ship model that is an actual 'model'.   It is a great gift from Ab Hoving and to our advantage that a way has come to us to generate plans for these otherwise lost vessels that way produces a reasonable approximation of their form and shape..  
 
About Ab Hoving's place in this:  To repeat myself, the skills and mental prospective required to be a pathfinder is different from the telephone sanitizers who follow on to tighten things up,  apply the polish, and make a big deal of deficiencies the original path did not include.  Pathfinders deserve honors and respect.  They are rare and cannot be willed into existence.  The education system is geared to produce an endless supply of telephone sanitizers.  Their contributions are obviously useful but are only incremental.

If the model was built the same way as the actual ship was built,  a free floating shell  - the result would probably be unreliable at best.  The material - wood - is the same - more or less.  The bending and other physical characteristics would not scale.   Since Nature's math is Calculus, the differences due to scale would be more than a linear proportion.  Trying to use the technique at scale as a predictor of full size behavior  would probably yield a failure.
 
If the full size shape was drawn, and scaled,  and molds or frames made to that shape,  these would be able to provide for a model that Was an accurate representation.
 
England was using plans at this time -  the method used was one of various derivatives of whole molding.  The example with three frames and the stern structure is what was used to get the mathematical data on paper in whole molding.  The batten part that came next was art and finesse for getting the lines.  Those preliminary whole molding plans were probably enough to get the bureaucracy off their backs.  Rather than try to get wood to match some planed shape, they took what the wood allowed them.  Their battens were full sized on the ways, instead of slivers on a drawing board.   It would be constant frustration for the customer that was a bureaucracy wanting cookie cutter predictability.   It is frustration for those who wish to replicate   in miniature   what they built .
 
Whole molding uses very basic geometric tools - straight lines and arcs.  These guild based shipwrights were probably doing basically the same things.  Instead of committing it to paper before they started,  they probably did it either in their heads, or did drawings that were one off for each part and that were discarded after use.   My bet is that the plans version of whole molding came from someone breaking the rules and committing to paper what the guild had been doing for quite a while.   It just took a Royal to get too involved in the actual work for someone to gain profit by revealing guild secrets.
 
For the actual ships at the time and in the place at issue here,  we have no evidence that significantly sophisticated plans were used.  The problem is:  it is necessary to have these sort of plans to build a ship model that is an actual 'model'.   It is a great gift from Ab Hoving and to our advantage that a way has come to us to generate plans for these otherwise lost vessels that way produces a reasonable approximation of their form and shape..  
 
About Ab Hoving's place in this:  To repeat myself, the skills and mental prospective required to be a pathfinder is different from the telephone sanitizers who follow on to tighten things up,  apply the polish, and make a big deal of deficiencies the original path did not include.  Pathfinders deserve honors and respect.  They are rare and cannot be willed into existence.  The education system is geared to produce an endless supply of telephone sanitizers.  Their contributions are obviously useful but are only incremental.

If the model was built the same way as the actual ship was built,  a free floating shell  - the result would probably be unreliable at best.  The material - wood - is the same - more or less.  The bending and other physical characteristics would not scale.   Since Nature's math is Calculus, the differences due to scale would be more than a linear proportion.  Trying to use the technique at scale as a predictor of full size behavior  would probably yield a failure.
 
If the full size shape was drawn, and scaled,  and molds or frames made to that shape,  these would be able to provide for a model that Was an accurate representation.
 
England was using plans at this time -  the method used was one of various derivatives of whole molding.  The example with three frames and the stern structure is what was used to get the mathematical data on paper in whole molding.  The batten part that came next was art and finesse for getting the lines.  Those preliminary whole molding plans were probably enough to get the bureaucracy off their backs.  Rather than try to get wood to match some planed shape, they took what the wood allowed them.  Their battens were full sized on the ways, instead of slivers on a drawing board.   It would be constant frustration for the customer that was a bureaucracy wanting cookie cutter predictability.   It is frustration for those who wish to replicate   in miniature   what they built .
 
Whole molding uses very basic geometric tools - straight lines and arcs.  These guild based shipwrights were probably doing basically the same things.  Instead of committing it to paper before they started,  they probably did it either in their heads, or did drawings that were one off for each part and that were discarded after use.   My bet is that the plans version of whole molding came from someone breaking the rules and committing to paper what the guild had been doing for quite a while.   It just took a Royal to get too involved in the actual work for someone to gain profit by revealing guild secrets.
 
For the actual ships at the time and in the place at issue here,  we have no evidence that significantly sophisticated plans were used.  The problem is:  it is necessary to have these sort of plans to build a ship model that is an actual 'model'.   It is a great gift from Ab Hoving and to our advantage that a way has come to us to generate plans for these otherwise lost vessels that way produces a reasonable approximation of their form and shape..  
 
About Ab Hoving's place in this:  To repeat myself, the skills and mental prospective required to be a pathfinder is different from the telephone sanitizers who follow on to tighten things up,  apply the polish, and make a big deal of deficiencies the original path did not include.  Pathfinders deserve honors and respect.  They are rare and cannot be willed into existence.  The education system is geared to produce an endless supply of telephone sanitizers.  Their contributions are obviously useful but are only incremental.

I see this as a minor controversy that seems to have lasted about 250 years.  Unless some misplaced plans from 1637 finally show up, there is no definitive resolution.  It is all a best guess.  It is unfortunate that it has taken on more significance than it deserves.  It serves to divide into two camps,  whose further differences are not evident.   This is a large ship.  There is much about it to cover in a book.  For Frank Fox to disavow McKay's entire book over a couple of choices that are open to interpretation, seems excessive.  Better to praise what works and footnote the disagreement.  Then publish the alternative in NRJ with the alternate version of the plans.
I do not see this as being subject to vote,  unless the voter is actually building a model of the ship.  And, then, which ever choice is made should have no affect on how that model is judged, if it is an entry in a contest.  A museum suit is entitled to use this as a decision point for an acquisition.  Given the current fashion / fad exercised by museums, who knows how long it will be before even the possibility is a factor?   
 
Now, valid vote or not,  I see round.  The continuation of the caulking seams in the whole white area, is my key.  A flat tuck would have different planking.  That said, them's some pretty wide boards between those seams.  Did the painter actually see the ship?  Did he use a poorly planked model of it as his source?

Well, should you be mad enough to do it using the Station Sandwich Method, the likely response would not be wrath, it would be ....crickets.

I use the HF 4" ratchet clamps with the large grey wing nut - and as many as possible - because they can apply significant pressure.  This for the frames within a section.
A book press and plate press to join sections - helps but is not perfect - The surfaces at the FP and AP are often not directly opposite so the force lines do not play nice for final assembly sometimes.  But then, there are many areas on any ship model where significant clamping pressure is difficult.
 
I can use a basic raster drawing program to get my patterns.  The curves are line segments instead of smooth curves,  They look like curves and the sanding makes them smooth curves.  The process is hands-on with very few commands - only the basic - DRAW, CUT, PASTE. An almost flat learning curve.

I use a 9" bandsaw with a 1/4" blade and a Carter Stabilizer.  The blade swings on its back edge like  a screen door. 
What I am suggesting here allows for a more refined cut for the outside face.  There are no alignment pins outside the body of the frames, so the actual frame shape can be got at.  
 
For real POF the stack of frames between each station is thick.  For the station intervals other than the dead flat - the curve of the hull has almost no areas where a perpendicular thru the stack would be inside the body of the frame.  The alignment pins must be outside the frames.  The scroll cut is then sort of close enough not to be toooo fat - but not slice into the pin sites.  The timbers are mostly sort of rectangles. The cut goes quickly.  When a stack of frames is glued up, what you do with hand tools, I do using a belt sander or drum sander with 80 grit medium.  The identical pattern is on both faces of the stack so I can get fairly close and have an accurate bevel.  The fine work is 220 grit on the drum.   Now, at the two or three stations at the bow and stern, the bevel is impressive.  The amount of extra wood to remove takes time  and the volume of dust makes for a good desert sand storm.   I had M-95 masks on hand when SARS-2 hit.  The outside is never all that difficult to shape.  It is the inside that is challenging.  At the ends, especially the stern, where the slope gets acute,  getting at the area of the keelson requires hand tools.  It takes time and gets frustrating.  Because I am working with segments, I can take the work to the tools.  I can manipulate the work at a stationary tool.
 
 
For this project, the stern is not like that and the inside is mostly not needing much work.  It can be most anything - since it will be hidden.  Only if RC was the goal, would the inside need any attention.  The inside can be left fat enough for the alignment pins to be inside and be inside all the frames in a section.  I would even use bamboo skewers inside of steel quilters pins and glue them in.
 
One factor with the Station Sandwich Method is that it is power tool heavy.  Because the frame thicknesses must be precise and uniform,  because there are so many frames,  it requires a lot of wood.  It almost makes it necessary to be your own sawmill.  But I guess any sort of scratch POF requires that.

I use a 9" bandsaw with a 1/4" blade and a Carter Stabilizer.  The blade swings on its back edge like  a screen door. 
What I am suggesting here allows for a more refined cut for the outside face.  There are no alignment pins outside the body of the frames, so the actual frame shape can be got at.  
 
For real POF the stack of frames between each station is thick.  For the station intervals other than the dead flat - the curve of the hull has almost no areas where a perpendicular thru the stack would be inside the body of the frame.  The alignment pins must be outside the frames.  The scroll cut is then sort of close enough not to be toooo fat - but not slice into the pin sites.  The timbers are mostly sort of rectangles. The cut goes quickly.  When a stack of frames is glued up, what you do with hand tools, I do using a belt sander or drum sander with 80 grit medium.  The identical pattern is on both faces of the stack so I can get fairly close and have an accurate bevel.  The fine work is 220 grit on the drum.   Now, at the two or three stations at the bow and stern, the bevel is impressive.  The amount of extra wood to remove takes time  and the volume of dust makes for a good desert sand storm.   I had M-95 masks on hand when SARS-2 hit.  The outside is never all that difficult to shape.  It is the inside that is challenging.  At the ends, especially the stern, where the slope gets acute,  getting at the area of the keelson requires hand tools.  It takes time and gets frustrating.  Because I am working with segments, I can take the work to the tools.  I can manipulate the work at a stationary tool.
 
 
For this project, the stern is not like that and the inside is mostly not needing much work.  It can be most anything - since it will be hidden.  Only if RC was the goal, would the inside need any attention.  The inside can be left fat enough for the alignment pins to be inside and be inside all the frames in a section.  I would even use bamboo skewers inside of steel quilters pins and glue them in.
 
One factor with the Station Sandwich Method is that it is power tool heavy.  Because the frame thicknesses must be precise and uniform,  because there are so many frames,  it requires a lot of wood.  It almost makes it necessary to be your own sawmill.  But I guess any sort of scratch POF requires that.

I can't get anyone else to eat the mushrooms or drink the Kool-Aid, but the Station Sandwich Method can be a fairly rapid way to construct a hull.  In this instance the troublesome factors are not a part of it. 
That would be worrying about the spaces - there are none 
and
making the individual timbers match the lengths of the prototype vessel - all that is needed is for the grain to be as straight as practical in each segment
and
making the moulded dimension match the original and the inside be faired - fatter is better since the alignment can be here and rough does not matter.  It might need some attention if a motor and radio equipment would live there.
 
The method that I am suggesting does not need a building board or alignment jigs.  The pieces internally align themselves.
The size of bread and butter or buttock layers makes for more hand chisel and hand power sanding.
A body station section of layers is small enough to take the work to a belt or drum sander. 
 
I was guessing that the OP was interested in multiple copies or providing a data file that would direct a laser cutter for customers.  Both of the other solid/hollow hull methods use stock that is too large for a laser cutter.  If a laser can cut 1/8" Pine, then each frame would be - what?  16 feet in scale?   It would be about 50 layers for a 850 foot hull?  With straight timber segments,  fairly efficient use of a board could be laid out.  I suspect that the laser could "paint" the sand-to lines and alignment hole drill points directly on a board. 

I can't get anyone else to eat the mushrooms or drink the Kool-Aid, but the Station Sandwich Method can be a fairly rapid way to construct a hull.  In this instance the troublesome factors are not a part of it. 
That would be worrying about the spaces - there are none 
and
making the individual timbers match the lengths of the prototype vessel - all that is needed is for the grain to be as straight as practical in each segment
and
making the moulded dimension match the original and the inside be faired - fatter is better since the alignment can be here and rough does not matter.  It might need some attention if a motor and radio equipment would live there.
 
The method that I am suggesting does not need a building board or alignment jigs.  The pieces internally align themselves.
The size of bread and butter or buttock layers makes for more hand chisel and hand power sanding.
A body station section of layers is small enough to take the work to a belt or drum sander. 
 
I was guessing that the OP was interested in multiple copies or providing a data file that would direct a laser cutter for customers.  Both of the other solid/hollow hull methods use stock that is too large for a laser cutter.  If a laser can cut 1/8" Pine, then each frame would be - what?  16 feet in scale?   It would be about 50 layers for a 850 foot hull?  With straight timber segments,  fairly efficient use of a board could be laid out.  I suspect that the laser could "paint" the sand-to lines and alignment hole drill points directly on a board. 

Perhaps you should back things up a step or two.
Although I admit to seeing POB as being too hideous to be used for much of anything,  in this situation I think the problems with it transcends my obvious prejudice.
It does not fit will with iron or steel construction.
A scale of 1:192 is beyond the capabilities of the technique.
Trying to fight Nature by over scaling the materials to try to force strength where it does not reasonably fit is why you are proposing an under size for mold surface area and overly thick shell material.
 
A POB wooden hull has a longitudinal shell (planking) that spans multiple molds.  The shell members butt on alternating and widely spaced molds.   You may have to use planking strakes to pull off what you propose. The problem is that your hull is 4-8 times longer that most wooden hulls. 
If the molds are close enough together, a single layer of planking should suffice. 
The length of the hull will have it wanting to bow and break.
 
 
 
The stress will probably require a total planking layer that is inappropriately thick.
That it is planking will make it difficult to get the flat planes that are desired.
The old wooden hull guys probably would have wanted to have a longer hull.  The physical properties of wood limited their possibilities. 
 
There is no answer in the back of the book for your question.  If you are determined to continue on your proposed path, the likely answer is that you will have to do the experiment yourself.  If you can find find a practical combination of spine thickness, mold thickness, shell thickness, then you can tell us
 
The real answer is to build a solid hull. A hull that is exactly the finished dimension and use as thin a material as can be had to cover it.
 
 
@Roger Pellett  both of our methods fail the Navy standards according to what @Bob Cleek presented.  Your two half hulls makes it easier to manage, but the Navy does not like the midline seam.  My method is beyond their imagination - probably because it is WWII era and PVA had not been developed.   The species of Mahogany that they want has been loved to death and is no longer available.   Boo - on the Basswood.

In which case, a straight forward hull construction would be to use a version of POF for the smooth hull.
The hull would look like a loaf of sliced bread, upside down and hollowed out.
It can be as hollow as you wish.  It is easier if the moulded dimension is thick enough for dowels (bamboo skewers) to be used for alignment.  Clear Pine that is maximum thickness for a laser for the "frames".  The frames are more economical if they are three 'timbers" alternating with five "timbers".  No spaces.  The "frames"  first assembled as station sections.  The sections shaped and then joined.
Clamps and beams added later for the deck.
 
If Titebond III  and the plating bonded and coated to be waterproof, nothing major extra would be needed for an R/C version.

Your subject is steel navy?
The lines are the outside dimensions?
The hull would be steel plates, not wooden planks. A double layer of strakes of wood = not an authentic look.
If there are enough molds, one layer should be enough.  The plating can be 3x5 cards. A primer that soaks in and sets up hard = stiff enough to resemble steel?
In this case, the thickness may be adding so little that the outside lines can be used as is.
The actual ship plans should provide plate diameters. A riveted or welded seam would have a support behind it.
The thickness of the molds = how thick will your laser penetrate and not leave a wedge behind?
 
In the situation of a double layer of wooden planking and starting with outside lines, Once you decide on how thick you want each layer to be, the sum of the two is how much is subtracted.
If it is a kit that you manufacture, the species for each layer, the thickness that you can obtain, and be sure will be available for as long as the kit is being manufactured - the price -  your choice.
If it is just plans, and a builder must source materials,  the thickness is determined by what can be easily obtained.
 
A wooden sail vessel at 1:192,  This is miniature scale.  I would question POB being at all practical.

Your subject is steel navy?
The lines are the outside dimensions?
The hull would be steel plates, not wooden planks. A double layer of strakes of wood = not an authentic look.
If there are enough molds, one layer should be enough.  The plating can be 3x5 cards. A primer that soaks in and sets up hard = stiff enough to resemble steel?
In this case, the thickness may be adding so little that the outside lines can be used as is.
The actual ship plans should provide plate diameters. A riveted or welded seam would have a support behind it.
The thickness of the molds = how thick will your laser penetrate and not leave a wedge behind?
 
In the situation of a double layer of wooden planking and starting with outside lines, Once you decide on how thick you want each layer to be, the sum of the two is how much is subtracted.
If it is a kit that you manufacture, the species for each layer, the thickness that you can obtain, and be sure will be available for as long as the kit is being manufactured - the price -  your choice.
If it is just plans, and a builder must source materials,  the thickness is determined by what can be easily obtained.
 
A wooden sail vessel at 1:192,  This is miniature scale.  I would question POB being at all practical.

I checked my library.
I lost what little Deutsch I had,  but none of the illustrations in Hendrik Busmann appear to address the stern at the water line.  Tafel II is a 27"x8" color foldout Peter Pett print.
 
There is something in James Sephton.  It is in an authoritative voice,  but he does not footnote that I can see, so I do not know his source.

Too late, but a stress free and precise way to drill the holes:
For small subjects, temp bond the piece to a base, mark/start the holes with a very sharp awl
and drill the holes with a drill press.
It avoids the twitch problem with free hand drilling as well as doing the hole perpendicular.
I find that the bits want to dance on the surface, and the awl produced pit avoids that.

Late to the fray, another consideration: If a square tuck, the fashion piece needs to join the sternpost at about waterline level in order for the rudder to act effectively. Look at the Lely painting again:
 

If that were a square tuck the lower end is well submerged and rudder action would be severely affected. That image, together with the Boston one, lead to the inevitable conclusion that she had a round tuck or just possibly a transitional one. It cannot have been a square one. I rest my case, gentlemen!

An aspect of gunports that seems to be often missed:
The sides of the ports are parallel to the frames, not perpendicular to the LWL.
The sills and lintels are parallel to the deck at the port location.  In the middle there is little or no difference port to port.  At the ends, each port is individual in shape.
The ports are parallelograms with vertical sides.  A stick used as a gauge for every port on a particular deck produces an inauthentic result.
The gun truck or skid sits on the deck.  The barrel tracks parallel to the deck.

Theory here:
 
It is difficult to get an acceptable finish on a gunport by cutting it and finishing the sides of the cut.
It may be a successful procedure to make the opening oversize and inserting a frame of a sill and lintel and having a veneer layer where the frame timbers would be.
If you are set on all rectangular openings, the same jig can be used for every port on a particular deck to glue up the framing.  It is then a matter of shimming each frame.  If the frames are mounted before placing the outside planking, .....
 

You may wish to explore what is realistic as far as what is the compensation for a ship model built from a kit.
The impression that I get is that they sell for about what is retail for the original kit.
It is possibly different for a scratch built model of a unique subject built by someone with an existing reputation as an artist,
Even then, based on a dollars per hour,  it is unlikely to match what a skilled senior professional in the trades would receive.  
For a kit, red state minimum wage is probably a dream.