Jaager

I think it is in Underhill, that after planking the hull, he 'flooded the bilges with varnish'.   I am fairly sure that at the time it was written, varnish was generally taken to be essentially "boiled" linseed oil in mineral spirits.  It was probably a 'one off, seems like a good idea' choice.  Not at all an experiment with controls.   At the time, most of those writing how-to books were few in number, in isolation as far as consensus about what were optimal practices for stability over time.  The closest to that I have seen to objective procedure  are the USN museum standards for models that they would purchase.    I am not sure that any finish will be 100% successful at preventing the hull wood from equilibration with the temperature, O2, and water vapor of its environment. 
 
Clear coating a closed interior may or may not have any practical benefit.  But one definite negative would be if you coat a place where a subsequent wood to wood bond would be.  PVA bonds by intercalating its synthetic hyphae onto a microscopically rough surface and into micro pores that all wood has. Filling the pores and smoothing the surface with a clear finish, or sanding finer than 220 tends to defeat the bonding process.  
 
Coming at this from a POF - with no windows cut into the hull - point of view - if you intend to shellac an interior space before it is closed - I recommend  that any site where a PVA bond is yet to be  have a masking material there before the shellac is applied.  A really tedious and no fun at all sort of prep work and worse, clean up after.  Then, if your OCD about this is intense enough: what to do about the sides and bottoms of the deck beams and the underside of the deck planking between the beams?  It would take the skill of a fiber optic surgeon to get at it after assembly.  If done prior, this adds significant time and work to assembly.
 
To be logical,  worry about  failing due to environmental forces demands  another factor.  Certainly if it is a properly precise wood to wood bond that was clamped with enough pressure to yield a close surface to surface distance.  The polymer chain length should not too long, for a strong bond to form.    This other factor is what I call a belt and suspenders bond.   That is, the bond be both chemical and physical.  The physical part is a dowel at every bond.  The dowel, if visible, should have an in scale diameter.   Pulling bamboo thru a draw plate - especially in the high #70's range is difficult and the yield is low.   It is grad school level - 15% finish  - rather than med school level - >95% - if you get in you will finish unless you work at failing.
 
The bottom line - for a PVA wood to wood bond - always have it raw wood to raw wood.  If you use an agent that allows smooth surface to smooth surface adhesion ( epoxy (?) or CA ("the horror, the horror") )  the worry goes up stream.  The weak point is the clear finish to wood bond.  And no finish ever flakes off?
 
addendum:   In the shower just now, I remembered another option:
For a clear coat for a part of the hull that will never been seen again - give a thought to brushing lacquer.  
It is visibly thick, drys in 2 hours, has been around long enough to show that it lasts.
Too shiny to use where it can be seen.  It is out of scale thick, also.
No spray version - small enough to spray is small enough to breathe - any mitigation will never be as good as never making it airborne to begin with.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

I vote for the block plane.
Turn a square into an octagon, lean into it a bit to make the taper, and so on until it's round and tapered enough. Goes quickly. Finish with sanding or scrapers.
 

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

And then there's the electric drill lathe which you probably already own. 

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

Being at that same point,  I see two conflicting factors in play.  It is much easier to fare the bow without the stem.  Rather than having a notch where the stemson would be, I opted for a stemson that is flush with the bow timbers. But with it being all that is there, the danger and likely outcome is the stemson will be rounded over and not provide a sufficient landing for the stem.  Thinking on it, the wise choice is to attach a temporary sacrificial piece of wood where the stem will be.  Let it take all of the abuse.  I think a bent thicker ribbon of wood may do the trick.
 
I am not being able to resolve a dowel - not dowel  conflict as regards how to attach the stem assembly.   I do not see a need to fix the stem until I am ready to attach the wale, so I can put it off.

Depending on the kit, things might go way south into never-never land.   I'd suggest you take the bow bits and make a temporatry bow out of scrap.  Keeping in the proper plance might be a mental exercise but it should be doable.  After fairing, replace the bow with the kit parts.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

MPJA.com  sells a DC selectable power supply   $20
AliExpress has a wide selection of small DC motors  some with Jacobs chucks and probably some with collet chucks  for $20 or less
 
Even the old loss leader small DC drill that Harbor Freight used to sell - that was hopeless with the supplied DC transformer - actually does some work with the selectable power supply.
 
Worse comes to worse, even a General pin vise with the heel swivel and 4 sizes of collets (2 double ended) would probably be better than any small pus pull drill.  We has a long round table discussion about pin vises here, not that long ago.  It may be work a read.

MPJA.com  sells a DC selectable power supply   $20
AliExpress has a wide selection of small DC motors  some with Jacobs chucks and probably some with collet chucks  for $20 or less
 
Even the old loss leader small DC drill that Harbor Freight used to sell - that was hopeless with the supplied DC transformer - actually does some work with the selectable power supply.
 
Worse comes to worse, even a General pin vise with the heel swivel and 4 sizes of collets (2 double ended) would probably be better than any small pus pull drill.  We has a long round table discussion about pin vises here, not that long ago.  It may be work a read.

I don't even know what I don't know about motors and electronics,  but I am of the thought that most Dremel machines are designed to work in the 5,000 - 30,000 RPM range.  I have an old single speed tool of early 1970's vintage and I bought a Dremel solid state speed control to use with it,  but I do not think that 300 RPM would be possible - not enough power to do any work.  I think that the whole series is designed around flash rather than actually doing any real work at whatever speed is selected.
 
The chuck that fits 1/8" shafts may be a problem, but a DC motor - there are many sizes and most are low cost  - a bench top DC power supply that is 3 -4.5 -6 -7.5 -9 -12 Volts @ 2000mA is <$20 if a lot of torque is not needed and 300 RPM may be possible there.
 
I now have a Foredom TX  and it has a range of 500 - 15,000 - it is a much superior tool for rotary work.  It is supposed to provide full power at the low speed as well as the high speed.   
 
If it is just ship modeling that you will be doing,  It will be difficult to find enough work for any rotary tool to justify a major capital outlay,

I don't even know what I don't know about motors and electronics,  but I am of the thought that most Dremel machines are designed to work in the 5,000 - 30,000 RPM range.  I have an old single speed tool of early 1970's vintage and I bought a Dremel solid state speed control to use with it,  but I do not think that 300 RPM would be possible - not enough power to do any work.  I think that the whole series is designed around flash rather than actually doing any real work at whatever speed is selected.
 
The chuck that fits 1/8" shafts may be a problem, but a DC motor - there are many sizes and most are low cost  - a bench top DC power supply that is 3 -4.5 -6 -7.5 -9 -12 Volts @ 2000mA is <$20 if a lot of torque is not needed and 300 RPM may be possible there.
 
I now have a Foredom TX  and it has a range of 500 - 15,000 - it is a much superior tool for rotary work.  It is supposed to provide full power at the low speed as well as the high speed.   
 
If it is just ship modeling that you will be doing,  It will be difficult to find enough work for any rotary tool to justify a major capital outlay,

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.

To the best of my knowledge, the synthetics can't be dyed.  They're a filiment and not fibers.  

Knee jerk response - probably not.
For wood, aqueous aniline dyes are stated to penetrate wood more deeply than alcohol based dyes.
The water will raise wood grain -at least on first exposure - and alcohol does not.
At full size furniture scale, the depth of dye penetration is probably an important factor.
At the scale of a wooden ship model, I strongly suspect that any difference between alcohol and water based dye is too slight to matter.
This would make alcohol based dye a preferred agent for a model being "painted" with wood.
For fabric fibers, the density is magnitudes less than any wood, so alcohol should penetrate with no problem.  As far as I know, no low molecular weight alcohol has any negative effects on natural plant fibers.   Just keep Clorox away from silk.
 
In my shipyard PVA is the only man-made synthetic material that is allowed.  (I have more than enough linen yarn, cotton thread, and silk.)
I have no idea what would color Nylon, polyester, polypropylene, or Dacron or whatever synthetic is now infesting current model rope stocks. 

Mark is correct and on target.  Using tea or coffee is very old tech. It is in some of the very old 'how to build a ship model'  books and I am guessing early articles in the NRJ.   The organic acids in the extract make it an ill advised way to simulate Pine tar.  It may or may not be a significant risk, but why introduce potentially destructive factors when there is no need.
 
Liberon and others make a pH neutral dye - it comes as crystals - an extract from Walnut husks  -  the solvent is water.   The shade and intensity can be controlled by the concentration of crystals in water.
 
Also a possible dye agent can be made from mixing red and black stamp pad refill liquid.  There is always Rite.   Wood dye can be diluted. 
 
We also had a recent kendo fight about how close to black was standing rigging before the petrol era (Drake's well - 1859 - PA, USA)
but I still vote against using the 000, 000, 000 black common with kits. Dark, dark, dark walnut is not so kitschy.
It was fairly convincing that running rigging should be some shade of straw color.
 

Mark is correct and on target.  Using tea or coffee is very old tech. It is in some of the very old 'how to build a ship model'  books and I am guessing early articles in the NRJ.   The organic acids in the extract make it an ill advised way to simulate Pine tar.  It may or may not be a significant risk, but why introduce potentially destructive factors when there is no need.
 
Liberon and others make a pH neutral dye - it comes as crystals - an extract from Walnut husks  -  the solvent is water.   The shade and intensity can be controlled by the concentration of crystals in water.
 
Also a possible dye agent can be made from mixing red and black stamp pad refill liquid.  There is always Rite.   Wood dye can be diluted. 
 
We also had a recent kendo fight about how close to black was standing rigging before the petrol era (Drake's well - 1859 - PA, USA)
but I still vote against using the 000, 000, 000 black common with kits. Dark, dark, dark walnut is not so kitschy.
It was fairly convincing that running rigging should be some shade of straw color.
 

Mark is correct and on target.  Using tea or coffee is very old tech. It is in some of the very old 'how to build a ship model'  books and I am guessing early articles in the NRJ.   The organic acids in the extract make it an ill advised way to simulate Pine tar.  It may or may not be a significant risk, but why introduce potentially destructive factors when there is no need.
 
Liberon and others make a pH neutral dye - it comes as crystals - an extract from Walnut husks  -  the solvent is water.   The shade and intensity can be controlled by the concentration of crystals in water.
 
Also a possible dye agent can be made from mixing red and black stamp pad refill liquid.  There is always Rite.   Wood dye can be diluted. 
 
We also had a recent kendo fight about how close to black was standing rigging before the petrol era (Drake's well - 1859 - PA, USA)
but I still vote against using the 000, 000, 000 black common with kits. Dark, dark, dark walnut is not so kitschy.
It was fairly convincing that running rigging should be some shade of straw color.
 

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.

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.

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