Jaager

Painting is not something that have much experience with, but I have been thinking that the reason to sand any layer of paint is to provide tooth for the next layer.  I would think that nothing good would come from abrading the final coat,  I am guessing that a smooth finish would either require that the consistency of a brushed coat be relatively thin or that an airbrush be used to apply it.

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

Painting is not something that have much experience with, but I have been thinking that the reason to sand any layer of paint is to provide tooth for the next layer.  I would think that nothing good would come from abrading the final coat,  I am guessing that a smooth finish would either require that the consistency of a brushed coat be relatively thin or that an airbrush be used to apply it.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

I think SeaWatch Books started with the purchase of Pier Books.  Pier Books was mostly an agent for other publishers, I think.   It was before the Internet, so their inventory was not available for viewing ad lib.   SeaWatch Books turned into a publisher,  finding authors and producing new titles that have proven to be popular and beneficial in ship modeling.  We can only hope that someone friendly to our interests at least picks up the inventory.  Better would be if a new owner did additional runs of titles now out of print.   A fond wish would be if this theoretical new owner also picked up the publisher torch and using eyes with a new perspective, found new authors for as yet unexplored areas in stick and string.
 
For the whole planet, I wish for this current business school fad of excessive and instantaneous  profit as being the only factor that matters to experience a long deserved death and a burial at the back next to the garbage bins.  In any case, a potential buyer would have to possess a much more narrow streak of greed than is seen in most business now.

Just some thoughts complicate this situation.
Two of the divide point categories with sanding media are open coat and closed coat.   When sanding wood, relatively large particles are being removed at the beginning and often these particles have sticky or gummy molecules as part of the mix.  Open coat has spaces for these particles to be carried away and the 3D zone of the abrasives knife-like edges works better on wood.
When working metal, the particles are of a different nature and close coat does a better job. 
Your epoxy is probably closer to a metal than wood as for what is needed to pare down your surface, so perhaps closed coat should be where you start your choice.
You need a quality backing, but a cloth backing may be too stiff - heavy wet-dry paper may work better.
 
It may be useful to view this from more of a broader perspective.
You have made what seems to be an ill advised choice in finishing materials.  Rather than continue spending unproductive time on a frustrating attempt to recover from this poor choice, punt.
If this was a scratch project, the choice would be simple:  place the hull on a shelf and start over and make a new one. 
A kit presents a major fork in the redo road.
Fork one:  buy a new kit -  the potential cost and re-plowing the same furrow sorta means that you should really love the vessel.
Fork two:  use the kit plans and gather the materials (and tools) to scratch build a new hull.  Better wood than the kit supplied stock is one possibility here.   The danger here is that the additional skills and perspective gained from jumping from the kit world to the scratch one, could take hold and the much wider world of choice of subject, size of the model, and quality of materials would keep you there.

Just some thoughts complicate this situation.
Two of the divide point categories with sanding media are open coat and closed coat.   When sanding wood, relatively large particles are being removed at the beginning and often these particles have sticky or gummy molecules as part of the mix.  Open coat has spaces for these particles to be carried away and the 3D zone of the abrasives knife-like edges works better on wood.
When working metal, the particles are of a different nature and close coat does a better job. 
Your epoxy is probably closer to a metal than wood as for what is needed to pare down your surface, so perhaps closed coat should be where you start your choice.
You need a quality backing, but a cloth backing may be too stiff - heavy wet-dry paper may work better.
 
It may be useful to view this from more of a broader perspective.
You have made what seems to be an ill advised choice in finishing materials.  Rather than continue spending unproductive time on a frustrating attempt to recover from this poor choice, punt.
If this was a scratch project, the choice would be simple:  place the hull on a shelf and start over and make a new one. 
A kit presents a major fork in the redo road.
Fork one:  buy a new kit -  the potential cost and re-plowing the same furrow sorta means that you should really love the vessel.
Fork two:  use the kit plans and gather the materials (and tools) to scratch build a new hull.  Better wood than the kit supplied stock is one possibility here.   The danger here is that the additional skills and perspective gained from jumping from the kit world to the scratch one, could take hold and the much wider world of choice of subject, size of the model, and quality of materials would keep you there.

It is a very fine and very hard wax mixed in an organic solvent - it is a bit thicker than Vaseline - the solvent evaporates fairly quickly -  but would be no fun atoll to try to remove

Plastic model assembly is not really all that much help in preparation for the skills and tools used for building a wooden hull.  
A major advantage of a wood based model for a plastic one is that it is much easier to backup and redo - often with much better quality wood - if you so choose.   The plans that come with the kit should have the patterns  for the parts that have been poorly assembled.  Obtain plywood stock,  It can be AA quality and thicker than the kit supplied.  Scan the patterns - double check for any scanner distortion and adjust and cement to the new plywood, cut the replacement parts out and assemble using your hard learned experience.    Check the vendors here,  planking stock is available.  The species will be much more scale appropriate. 

Plastic model assembly is not really all that much help in preparation for the skills and tools used for building a wooden hull.  
A major advantage of a wood based model for a plastic one is that it is much easier to backup and redo - often with much better quality wood - if you so choose.   The plans that come with the kit should have the patterns  for the parts that have been poorly assembled.  Obtain plywood stock,  It can be AA quality and thicker than the kit supplied.  Scan the patterns - double check for any scanner distortion and adjust and cement to the new plywood, cut the replacement parts out and assemble using your hard learned experience.    Check the vendors here,  planking stock is available.  The species will be much more scale appropriate. 

Rock,

As you have observed there are four major methods for forming a basic hull - at least as far as wooden hulled vessels are concerned.
Iron and steel hulls have their own methods and are outside my focus.

Solid hull - usually a softer wood like White Pine or Basswood.   Some kits still are this.  They use a machine that duplicates a pattern.  There is no looking at a block of wood while holding a hand full of patterns.   A intimidating  prospect for a one off model.   The Navy wants any models that they would buy to be hollowed out - to reduce the force caused by environment changes.   Traditionally, the outside is sealed and painted.  If the lines used are to the outside of the planking, the hull could still duplicate planking using a thin veneer of an appropriate species of hardwood.  If the lines are inside the planking, planking should match the scantlings.

Semi-solid  made up of layers . lift method -  with the horizontal lift method - the usual way is to duplicate the waterlines - the waterline intervals determine the thickness of the layers.  The bulk of the interior is usually removed. ( As with the above:  Traditionally, the outside is sealed and painted.  If the lines used are to the outside of the planking, the hull could still duplicate planking using a thin veneer of an appropriate species of hardwood.  If the lines are inside the planking, planking should match the scantlings. )
Old how to books list the possibility of a vertical lift method using the buttock lines and their intervals for layer thickness.  I cannot recall ever seeing a model built in this way.
The third lift possibility is the bread and butter method -  the stations and their intervals -  I have never seen this done using wood layers that are the thickness of the station intervals.

POB -  actually plank on mold  -  the transverse members are in no way frames  and only the Chinese built wooden vessels with actual bulkheads.  The longitudinal vertical support - something often complained about for being curved laterally is a spine.  It is not the keel.  Depending on the mold intervals and the mold thickness,  either one or two layers of planking are required.  This method is the dominant way both scratch and kit models hulls are fabricated now per my observation.   ( I first saw this method in a small book from Aeropiccola.     At the time their models had ridiculously wide intervals between molds.  I think they were the first of the kits from European (Italian) manufacturers.  My reaction then and now is the same.  The method looks ugly,  is hideous, and is a total insult to the ship that it is used to duplicate. )

POF  -  Plank on frame - constructing a hull using either framing that attempts to replicate actual practice as exactly possible ( currently a strong fad here )  or an artistic version or a stylized version of actual framing practice.   Following current techniques the time required can be considerable.  The worst part as far as time required is lofting timber patterns.  The published methods are tedious at best.   Two popular ways to avoid this are to only use published monographs that provide patterns for all of the frames in them  or for those who have previous CAD experience or an affinity for it, to enter plans data into a 3D CAD program, obtain a virtual hull and eventually extract frame patterns to use on wood.   I suspect that 3D CAD is not much of a time saver over doing it 2D on a drawing board.   Also, someone who knows would have to show where this was actually used by an individual  to frame a wooden hull.  The 3D CAD mostly seems to be an end in itself.
 
These are not necessarily the only choices.

Totally apart from the kit fan base aspect,  I will approach this from a curmudgeon-like view  or a sober view:
 
Buying a backup kit in your place in this path:
Has two positives -
It helps assuage your present enthusiasm.  Enthusiasm that is necessary to do this as a hobby.   The effect has a very short half-life.
If inflation takes hold, it may save you money in the future.  Especially if you do not otherwise put the money that you would spend on a kit, in an escrow account that keeps up with inflation - something that the system is geared to make difficult.
 
And negatives -
As you progress with your current model, your knowledge of this field should expand.  Your interest and choice of subjects may progress beyond what you consider.
In general, the necessary enthusiasm and drive to do this tends to cycle.   Most beginners probably do not continue beyond the first down cycle.   A backup kit will not maintain enthusiasm.  It will be money lost.  Lucky it would be to recover 50% on Ebay.
 
You should probably setup a stealth escrow account for this and continue to in filter funds - if you are not a solo.   The same sort of standard for any tools:  If you do not need a tool now for a particular task,  If you have to ask about it,  If you do not have more money than sense,  you should probably wait to buy it until the need is obvious.

First off, I like to term 1:48 = museum scale - at least for for the wooden vessels up to 1860.   The vast majority of plans from the pre 1860 eras are 1:48 and most of the models that are contemporary with the original vessels are also 1:48.
It makes for a convenient base scale for description and comparison with other scales.
 
1:50  - at first seems like it is the same as 1:48 - but the difference is significant. While any one dimension is 0.96 less at 1:50, model is a 3D entity and the over all model is actually 90%  the size of museum scale
1:64  - is 42% the size of museum scale..  Each dimension is 0.75 less.
1:60  - is ~50% the size of museum scale.  Each dimension is 0.80 less.
 
Gaetan's 1:24 model is 2.0 larger each dimension, but the model is 8 times larger than museum.   He had to use 8 times as much lumber.
 
1:96  - is  0.5 for each dimension  but the model is 0.125 as large as museum scale.
 
1:72  -   0.67 per   but the model is 0.30 the size of museum scale.
1:76  -   0.63 per   - the model is 0.25 the size of museum scale
 
1:120  -  0.4 per  -  0.064 the volume.   I explored this for the first rate St. Philippe -  a first rate @ 1:60 is imposing,  1:120 would be less intrusive to display, but the carvings would be a nightmare.
 
!:192    0.25 per  - 0.015 the volume  - I think this is the preferred scale of our published miniaturist artists.  At first glance - 1/4 the size does not seem so bad,  but when it is actually  fabricating something that 1.5% of museum scale - just what they have accomplished is awe-inspiring.

Dave,
 
You sorta have to use both.  a digital caliper of sufficient quality will have 3 readouts:  metric, Imperial digital,  Imperial fractions.  I would advise ignoring the fractions option.
For length  a tick strip can save on interpolation errors.
As has been presented above, the wise choice is to use the units of the original plans and tables of scantlings.  Interpolation and conversion errors are far too easy to make. 
 
@Bob Cleek @allanyed  National differences are obvious to any beginner looking at ANM - with the different scales on every plan - and add to that: the exact standardization  within a country being a bit fuzzy -  I had not put this together until now, but obsessing about +/- 0.01" on model timber stock is a wasteful and unproductive thing to worry about.  A foot or two translated to scale difference in a model hull is nothing to worry about.  The actual vessel would have a significant +/-.  The key factor is to be internally consistence.

First off, I like to term 1:48 = museum scale - at least for for the wooden vessels up to 1860.   The vast majority of plans from the pre 1860 eras are 1:48 and most of the models that are contemporary with the original vessels are also 1:48.
It makes for a convenient base scale for description and comparison with other scales.
 
1:50  - at first seems like it is the same as 1:48 - but the difference is significant. While any one dimension is 0.96 less at 1:50, model is a 3D entity and the over all model is actually 90%  the size of museum scale
1:64  - is 42% the size of museum scale..  Each dimension is 0.75 less.
1:60  - is ~50% the size of museum scale.  Each dimension is 0.80 less.
 
Gaetan's 1:24 model is 2.0 larger each dimension, but the model is 8 times larger than museum.   He had to use 8 times as much lumber.
 
1:96  - is  0.5 for each dimension  but the model is 0.125 as large as museum scale.
 
1:72  -   0.67 per   but the model is 0.30 the size of museum scale.
1:76  -   0.63 per   - the model is 0.25 the size of museum scale
 
1:120  -  0.4 per  -  0.064 the volume.   I explored this for the first rate St. Philippe -  a first rate @ 1:60 is imposing,  1:120 would be less intrusive to display, but the carvings would be a nightmare.
 
!:192    0.25 per  - 0.015 the volume  - I think this is the preferred scale of our published miniaturist artists.  At first glance - 1/4 the size does not seem so bad,  but when it is actually  fabricating something that 1.5% of museum scale - just what they have accomplished is awe-inspiring.

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

Rock,

As you have observed there are four major methods for forming a basic hull - at least as far as wooden hulled vessels are concerned.
Iron and steel hulls have their own methods and are outside my focus.

Solid hull - usually a softer wood like White Pine or Basswood.   Some kits still are this.  They use a machine that duplicates a pattern.  There is no looking at a block of wood while holding a hand full of patterns.   A intimidating  prospect for a one off model.   The Navy wants any models that they would buy to be hollowed out - to reduce the force caused by environment changes.   Traditionally, the outside is sealed and painted.  If the lines used are to the outside of the planking, the hull could still duplicate planking using a thin veneer of an appropriate species of hardwood.  If the lines are inside the planking, planking should match the scantlings.

Semi-solid  made up of layers . lift method -  with the horizontal lift method - the usual way is to duplicate the waterlines - the waterline intervals determine the thickness of the layers.  The bulk of the interior is usually removed. ( As with the above:  Traditionally, the outside is sealed and painted.  If the lines used are to the outside of the planking, the hull could still duplicate planking using a thin veneer of an appropriate species of hardwood.  If the lines are inside the planking, planking should match the scantlings. )
Old how to books list the possibility of a vertical lift method using the buttock lines and their intervals for layer thickness.  I cannot recall ever seeing a model built in this way.
The third lift possibility is the bread and butter method -  the stations and their intervals -  I have never seen this done using wood layers that are the thickness of the station intervals.

POB -  actually plank on mold  -  the transverse members are in no way frames  and only the Chinese built wooden vessels with actual bulkheads.  The longitudinal vertical support - something often complained about for being curved laterally is a spine.  It is not the keel.  Depending on the mold intervals and the mold thickness,  either one or two layers of planking are required.  This method is the dominant way both scratch and kit models hulls are fabricated now per my observation.   ( I first saw this method in a small book from Aeropiccola.     At the time their models had ridiculously wide intervals between molds.  I think they were the first of the kits from European (Italian) manufacturers.  My reaction then and now is the same.  The method looks ugly,  is hideous, and is a total insult to the ship that it is used to duplicate. )

POF  -  Plank on frame - constructing a hull using either framing that attempts to replicate actual practice as exactly possible ( currently a strong fad here )  or an artistic version or a stylized version of actual framing practice.   Following current techniques the time required can be considerable.  The worst part as far as time required is lofting timber patterns.  The published methods are tedious at best.   Two popular ways to avoid this are to only use published monographs that provide patterns for all of the frames in them  or for those who have previous CAD experience or an affinity for it, to enter plans data into a 3D CAD program, obtain a virtual hull and eventually extract frame patterns to use on wood.   I suspect that 3D CAD is not much of a time saver over doing it 2D on a drawing board.   Also, someone who knows would have to show where this was actually used by an individual  to frame a wooden hull.  The 3D CAD mostly seems to be an end in itself.
 
These are not necessarily the only choices.