Jaager

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

You could try applying a coat or two of shellac now to protect against finger prints and when the model is complete, use EtOH to remove it and let our atmosphere get at it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I found this when exploring an email special at StewMac:
It comes in 2" 3/4" and 1/4" rolls

I also found this seam separation knife and have it in my "tool looking for a function" category"
 

The copper plates were not riveted.  The copper nails were hammered near flush.  They were all but invisible at a distance corresponding to a model viewing distance.
There were way more of them than a ponce wheel produces.  Model versions of copper sheathing with a raised or embossed addition mostly tends to give a hull a bad case of small pox.
 
I am still thinking that 100% rag bond paper, paint with real copper, using PVA to attach may be an effective alternative,  in which case, a guillotine type paper cutter would be a real help.  It may even work to slice individual plates from a strip.  The paper could be painted while still at the 8.5 x 11 stage. 

A hand drill or most any motor that connects to a standard hex shaft,
I wonder how the chuck that comes with it is attached?  Perhaps a different chuck could replace it?

I came across this on Ali Express.  I am reasonably certain that this would be a source of endless frustration and trouble, but it is low cost:
 

 
 
 
Although this is a bit of drift from the topic at hand,  months before, while scouting  an XY table to possibly fix to my Foredom drill press attachment, I came across this device  ( for a grinder tool)  on Ali Express.   Even if it is possible to mount a Foredom hand piece in way that is secure and reproducible in precision:   as superficially cool as it looks,  I cannot come up with a job that it would do that is relevant to ship model building.  Am I missing something?   Doing an inferior job at replicating a HF chop saw is about it.
 

 

A hand drill or most any motor that connects to a standard hex shaft,
I wonder how the chuck that comes with it is attached?  Perhaps a different chuck could replace it?

A hand drill or most any motor that connects to a standard hex shaft,
I wonder how the chuck that comes with it is attached?  Perhaps a different chuck could replace it?

I came across this on Ali Express.  I am reasonably certain that this would be a source of endless frustration and trouble, but it is low cost:
 

 
 
 
Although this is a bit of drift from the topic at hand,  months before, while scouting  an XY table to possibly fix to my Foredom drill press attachment, I came across this device  ( for a grinder tool)  on Ali Express.   Even if it is possible to mount a Foredom hand piece in way that is secure and reproducible in precision:   as superficially cool as it looks,  I cannot come up with a job that it would do that is relevant to ship model building.  Am I missing something?   Doing an inferior job at replicating a HF chop saw is about it.
 

 

The ASA rules up to 1903  call for both deck planks and hull planks to be "the greatest length possible".
I suspect that by the turn of the 20th century, a significant portion of the old growth timber had been felled in eastern North America..
The mid 19th century US Navy wanted  deck planks to be 40 feet long.  The favored species was (I think) Yellow Pine.  It is not a wood that is seen much today - maybe some is recycled - everything usable was harvested - it is a species that is rock hard, it liked to turn a nail - not at all a soft Softwood.  I think that some has been replanted, but without consulting my Silviculture references, I suspect a species that hard and tall would be fairly slow growing.  As desirable as it would be, I suspect that a southern tree farmer would have to plant Yellow Pine for his grandchildren or great grandchildren to harvest.  I sort of doubt that Georgia Pacific would be up for doing it.
 
So I think it would come down to what was available, as to length.  Your guess would be as good as mine, on what it would be.  It was probably even more restricted in Northern and Western Europe.   My shipyard will use planks 25-40 feet long.  But for an individual ship, a single length, instead of random.   If a particular strake would need a short piece at either end,  the intent is to cheat and use a longer board instead of having a stub.   It is important to follow the butt stagger rules.  After seeing so much of the opposite here,  the goal is to have the butts not so obvious to avoid the busy look.  The deck is not supposed to be a star.  My yard inspectors mentally register the words: tacky, boring, naive, distracting, inauthentic  on viewing a job done like that.   It is also to wonder about the logic behind having obvious and contrasting trunnels just at the butts and not also at every beam.?  In any case, trunnels should not be a contrasting shade.