Jaager

Hi Dave
I really don't know about kits as they are more of a modern convention using modern methods and tooling (and I wish we did the same and adopt metrics in the US), but if you are looking for accuracy in scratch building or kit bashing and can find contemporary drawings for English ships up to 1826  they are usually 1/4" = 1 foot in English units.  FWIW The English units were replaced by Imperial units in 1826 by a Weights and Measurements Act.  There are other contemporary drawings I have seen in 1/2" = 1 foot and 1/8" = 1 foot.    The British Establishments, The Shipbuilder's Repository, Steel's Elements and Practices of Naval Architecture and more, also use English units.
 
An interesting thing I found is that the contemporary model of the LN at RMG is built to a scale of 3/8" = 1 Foot but when RMG gives the dimensions of the model in the description they are in metric.    https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66562  
 
Allan

Kev,
About which species your "Ramin" really is, now that it and its whole genus is unethical and short sited to use - it could be a lot of unrelated but similar looking species.  If your kit is a European one,  I would guess that it is an African species that has no catchy marketing name of its own.  In any case, you should not be surprised that the manufacturer might be a bit fast and loose with the truth in their advertising copy.
 
Danish oil is not an actual name of any single material.  It is a mixture of oils  - oils that are discussed here.  What is actually is varies between manufactures who use the gimmick name..   One would hope that within a particular manufacturer's product that the formula would be consistent.
On the serious level, there are two natural clear finish oils.
"boiled" Linseed oil - which seems to be consistent - when polymerized it does not have an especially hard surface - but a model will not be used as a table top, so this does not really matter all that much.
Tung oil - which is good stuff  IF you get the right stuff.   Just Tung oil as the name = it could be anything and may not actually contain Tung oil. Some name brands may be polyurethane.   100% pure Tung oil is the actual oil, but it can still be tricky.
If it is too old, or from a generic manufacturer or you do not use a proper primer coat and leave too thick a layer, it may not "dry" (polymerize) in your lifetime.  It this situation, it is a right awful mess to clean up.
Good quality and properly applied Tung will leave exactly the sort of finish that you are after. The more coats, the deeper it appears.  But each layer must be polymerized before you add the next.
 
Danish oil will probably provide a more predictable finish, and one that is harder than linseed but not as hard as Tung - provided that the can is within its useby date.
  

Poly urethane is a plastic.  I used it on my Walnut stained Oak kitchen floor in KY.  It looked good and held up well.  It certainly has its fans here for use on a model.  If you like a plastic look on a model on a vessel from 100+ years ago,  it is worth a look. It is simple enough to use.
 
Should you be more traditionally oriented, a simple, low cost, forgiving material is shellac.  More coats more depth.  Too shiny, Scotch Brite, steel wool, or bronze wool will dull it.
A low cost way is
Lee Valley shellac flakes 1/4 lb  -  choice of 3 shades for how warm and aged you are going for.
a can of denatured alcohol
for light 10% is enough (10 g in 100 ml)  the medium can probably be 20% , and the dark maybe 30%. 
Rag or brush to apply.
If you double or triple bag the dry flakes and put them in a freezer they should store for years.  just make sure that they are RT before you open the stored flakes.
It comes pre-mixed (avoid the silly aerosol version)  just be aware that the shelf life is limited.
 
A rule that learned in organic chem is that a reaction rate doubles for every 10 degree C temp rise.   Going from 20 C  to  -10 /20 C   is a 4-8-16 times longer half life for a compound prone to oxidation.
 

Steve,
 
I am not clear in following which machine that you are using for which task.
I will list my process instead of dissecting  yours.
I generally start with 8x4 rough lumber if I have that option.  I use the bandsaw to slice off planks that are close to one of the final dimension that I am after. 
The bandsaw product has a rougher surface than I want, but significantly better than what a saw mill blade does to the wood surface.
I try to make the thickness just enough that 80 grit on a thickness sander will remove all of the bandsaw blade scars but leave enough so the a 150 grit and then final 220 grit will to get to spec without having to do an excessive number of passes.   The edges of these stock planks are saw mill rough.
The 90 degree cut to get to a final construction size piece, I do using my Byrnes table saw.   The product from it is smooth enough not to need sanding before joinery.  A bandsaw being used for slicing off deck planks, deck beams, hull planking,, etc.  will want additional sanding and small strips of wood are difficult to thickness sand.
For the first pass on the table saw, there is always the hope that the edge is just smooth enough to ride against the fence for a clean straight cut - and scrap this first one,  or first use an edger ( which I do not have) - or a jig that I bought a while ago -  a sort of very long Al "C" clamp that rides against the fence and holds the board for a straight first cut. 
 
In my hands, I can see no way that using a bandsaw to do the final cut for wood strips would not totally frustrate me.
For my frame timbers, - my bandsaw and then thickness sander produces planks that are frame thickness,  The rough edges do not matter because I scroll cut the timbers from the body of the plank and the edges are not in it.  The occasional stealth check can be frustrating, but the extra 1/2" of wood usually available from not surface or edge planed lumber is something that I prefer.

@Egilman  @Dr PR  Thank you for the direction.   I think it was DesignCAD 3D  - the V. 1.0  or so that clued me to the realization that, although I may be able to generate a hull, I could not use it to take a cross section at any Z (point along the keel) and get a frame outline.  I was desperate to find a way to avoid hand plotting 200 plus frame outline shapes.   I have come to understand that a 3D modeler can do this.  But, by then I has found an entirely different and much more efficient and much faster way to reach my goal.    What my bucket list objective is to replicate one the Anthony Deane's 1673 first rate liners using the directions in his Doctrine.   I got a ways into it long ago when the first modern edition  was published.  This was on Mylar.  A key that I missed  at the time was  how many cross sections were drawn.  I thought that it was done for every station.  What I could not determine was which parameters were adjusted for each interval.  It turns out that I totally misunderstood the process.  There were only 3 cross sections during the design stage.  
The bow and aft sections could even be "slud" to get a sharp or blunt entry  and a lean or abrupt run aft.   Battens were used to get the run.  Diagonals and ultimately a model (with a framing style that simulated diagonals) were used to "prove" the hull shape.  No flats and no hollows.     There is no 3D needed.  It sounds like DesignCAD 2D is a way.  That is if it allows for the really huge circles whose arcs define the wales, decks and other construction curves needed.     I recommend following Deane's exercises as way to gain some understanding of the old hull design techniques and why all those strange lines that are not a part of actual wood shapes are on those old plans from the 18th century.  Essentially all of the 17th century ones did not survive time.
At my present age, this project is mostly a fantasy, but it is a comfort to see that it is a possibility using electrons instead of graphite.
 

Jaager,
 
CAD programs have many different ways to draw arcs and circles. All have the ability to set a center point, another point on the radius, and then set the length of the arc with a third point. You can set the center and radius points and define the angle. Other arc functions allow setting three points and generating the common arc or circle, set two points on the arc and a third for the radius, draw an arc tangent to a line, etc.
 
Spline curves are universal, but it can be difficult to create a specific "French curve" or similar variable radius arc. But if you know the geometric definition of the particular curve you can generate a sequence of points and connect them with a curve.
 
I use a program called DesignCAD 3D MAX that sells for about US$95 (there is a 2D version for about US$65). It has an excellent user forum (probably the most important thing for starting a new program) that is free, and the program does not have recurring subscription costs. It has the best user interface I have seen in any program. BUT - it is a CAD program, and all CAD programs have a pretty steep learning curve.

Brother, you've been looking at the wrong software's..... Most 3D cad software has all this capability your looking for built in and then some... Try Free Cad or Tinker Cad... Rhino has an affordable subscription I've been told and we have a thread on how to do hulls in it beginning to explore the process in a bit...
 
EG

1- I forgot to add that my pin pusher also works to remove a pin .
2 - It works bamboo dowels/trunnels up to at least #50.
3 - The tool that I used before the pusher became available also works -  a curved Kelly clamp. 
 
Curved Kelly clamp - I used the size most often carried by RN.  Save frustration and buy quality (European) to begin with - the ones sold on hobby sites are no bargain.  - with bamboo trunnels drawn from the softer species especially - the business ends of the clamps can be covered using used IV tubing.  If the local hospital or clinic are no help try a vet.

Before you jump to a mass market sort of mill, you may wish to visit littlemachineshop.com and at least look at the $800 Sieg.  A wider view of the field can be useful.
Also, expenditure on accessories may be greater than that of the original machine.

If you do not contemplate manufacturing your own metal tools, then neither a mill nor a lathe will prove to be an economical expenditure.
The parts of a hull that they will produce are relatively few.  If you are going with a larger scale and mostly leaving the outer planking off, there may be more work for a mill.
The probability is that both tools will mostly sit, looking for a job, if it is only wood that they will be used on.  
For fabricating metal tools, both are vital.
 
A Byrnes table saw, disk sander,  and a drum sanding table and an accurate drill press come far ahead of these two tools.
Serious POF probably means that you will have to be your own sawmill.  In which case - a big boy bandsaw and Byrnes thickness sander slip in ahead of them.

Steve,
 
Tracking on a bandsaw is not about the blade staying where you set it on the guide wheels.  I would expect that most any model saw will hold where it is placed.
The critical factor is the sort of cut it makes in wood.  Resawing is the high stress test for a saw.
As long as your cuts are producing slices that are parallel and all in the same plane - using your present position - well, if it ain't broke, don't change it.
If it starts doing an "S" along the cut,  or  the thickness at the start is different from the thickness at the end (even though still perfectly vertical)  try moving the blade at the top wheel such that the teeth are at the center.
I would say the same if it started giving a wedge ( an angle when viewed end on ),  but I suspect that what this sort of wedge is telling you is that the blade is no longer sharp enough and needs to be replaced.
You could try adjusting the blade position, but all that might do is prolong the bad cuts.  The cost for doing that test is wasted wood.  If I am correct about the blade being too dull, soon starts the banging, and then the snap.  
As an aside, no matter the cut, any new bang, bang, bang, means that there is a crack in the blade, Stop and replace, it will not take long for the blade the snap anyway. 
 
Most who have a tabletop bandsaw probably never use it for resawing.  They use it for scroll cuts and maybe short crosscuts - it is quick and dirty at crosscutting.  With a scroll cut, a continuous adjustment is being made as the work moves against the saw.  The center of the blade at the crown of the top wheel is probably sufficient for this and is easy to do.   What you are doing is pushing the saw to its extreme limits in doing thick hardwood resawing.   With a big saw and a carbide tip blade or bimetal blade, the work is repetitive, mostly, and on cruise, mostly, although it still deserves close and constant attention.   With the small machine, each slice is likely to be a whole new adventure.

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

Steve,
About the resawing using the bandsaw, 
The 1/2" blade is the width that I use on my 14" Rikon.  Wider does not seem to mean less wander.  The floor model saws have access to a variety blade choices.  For resaw operations, 3 - 4 teeth per inch work best.
A lot of wood is being removed per blade rotation and a big gullet is needed.  For expensive hardwood minimum set leaves a smoother surface - economy blades have too much set - bimetal blades cost a bit more, but last way longer than off the shelf steel.
My guess is that your benchtop bandsaw has few choices in blades.  My guess = all steel.   Buy a lot of backup  -  the blades dull faster than would be desired.
My unit tracks as well as I could expect after I followed the on-the-Web suggestion to site the blade teeth  at the crown of the top wheel.
      My old manuals have the back of the gullet at the crown - this produces less than ideal tracking.  The cost is that the teeth mar the wheel band.  Now, when the blade starts to wander or do a wedge instead in vertical, it means that the blade is getting dull
I am not sure that you are doing yourself any favor by using a zero clearance insert at the table for resawing.   Nothing is going to be small enough to fall or jam even if there is no insert.  You are discovering the wood chip problem by not letting the kerf travel down to the vac intake.  It may also get between the stock and the tabletop?
 
I also have a 9" tabletop bandsaw.  I use it almost exclusively for scroll cutting.  This operation does want a near zero clearance insert.  Wood chips can jam the internal track of the blade - especially at the below the table blade supports.  The chips also can fire off like a bullet.   ( I do not care for the up-down pressure on the stock that a scroll saw produces.  A bandsaw is downward pressure only.  The downside is a rougher cut because of fewer TIP and some set to the blade.  But a sharp blade does crew thru 1/4" stock about as fast as I care to feed it.
My misreading of web page fine print caused me to make a mistake that turned out to do me a favor.  Olson had a sale on 59.5" blades -  I had been using 1/8" blades.   The sale was for fewer TIP but thin kerf.  I bought 10.  Turns out that they were 1/4" instead of 1/8".  I feared for a loss in cutting a sharp curve.  Turns out that there is not that much loss in fine tracking and the 1/4" blades last way way longer.  My 10 blades may out last me. 
 
In the US, we can get get some real crap in our choice of hobby tabletop bandsaw blades.  PowerTec - I found to be not sharp and brittle steel,   Bosch is now also VermontAmerican - they used to be OK, but they must have fired their QA department, because I got a batch that would have cut better if I flipped the blade and used the back side as the cutting edge.    Olson  - costs more - is sharper - lasts longer - the longer life is more than the additional cost - so in the end it is the economical choice. 
 
My experience with all this has provided me with the following lessons:
If you will be doing serious resawing -  harvesting logs and seasoning them  -  getting lots of 4x4 and 8x4 commercial lumber  - not buying a floor model 14" bandsaw  with a powerful motor - and expecting a 9"/10" tabletop bandsaw to fill in will turn out not to workout all that well.   The big boys not only do the job, there are way more choices for blades.
The tabletop  - the advertised depth of cut is for Pine - not dense hardwood -  the feed has to be slow and a blade will dull sooner than wished for.    If you can accept a rough cut and have a drum, disc, and belt sander to fine tune to the line, it will be a better scroll cutter than a purpose built machine - especially if you are cutting thicker stock.  So, it was not really a mistake.

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.

Steve,
I think that one answer is that it is up to you. 
If you are using a large bandsaw to do this resaw operation
If it is planking stock that you are producing
The easy way it to slice the plank width as the slice thickness - with extra for thickness sander removal
Then the plank thickness is what your Byrnes table saw slices off.
If the grain that will show is not what you want on display:
 
That a much thicker slice for the first cut from the board - one that is as thick as you are comfortable feeding into your bandsaw.
If you are stuck with using a 10" table saw - this slice is whatever the maximum depth of cut for you saw blade  ~ 1-2" usually
Rotate thisk stock 90 degrees.
Then slice the pre sander widths.   The Byrnes saw product will be the plane cut face  There could be no grain or grain arcs depending on your luck.
 
I hope that your Sycamore is the English species using that name - Acer pseudoplatanus 
If it is the American species using that name -  Platanus occidentalis   You really do not want it showing.  It is a bit brittle, it stinks,  another name for it is Lacewood - the grain is really busy.
The Acer is almost as hard as Hard Maple -  with Hard Maple - edge slices can show a variety of grain patterns - fire - fiddleback - all of the patterns that other sorts of woodworkers pay a lot extra for and that we do not want.   It is up to chance and depends on the way the tree rings are oriented to the plane of the blade.
For frame timber in the lower hull where there is a curve- there is no hope for invisible grain figures -  I just let Mother Nature win that one.
 
Your Pear looks like a challenge.
If you have an edger - getting a straight edge - will cost you a lot of wood
If you do not have an edger - you really want a bandsaw
a ~1/2" carrier board  to rife against the fence and be on the saw table.   Fix the Pear plank to the carrier - drywall screws if you gotta -  with enough beyond the outer edge of the carrier that the blade will get you your complete straight edge.
The outer cutoff and be against the fence too - slices from it will just be ever shorter and the end grain will be really angled  - but it will not be edger chips either.
 
The carrier board on a bandsaw is also way way to mill logs and branches.   Steel framing braces and long screws to keep it fixed to the carrier.

Oh well, it was worth taking the shot.  
It is appreciated that you offered what you have presented.

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.

The programs that I have explored have arcs, but the function involves starting with two defined points on the circumference and connecting them.  This is no help for whole moulding.
Whole moulding - the center and one point on the circumference are the beginning  data that is input .    
Modern programs allow the center to be derived, but not used as a beginning.
I suspect that it is necessary to work thru the exercises in Anthony Deane's book to understand the tools needed.
The key curves on the profile i.e. main wale, etc.  have centers than are far above what paper is needed by a plan in its finished shape.   The one or two drawings of ships being drafted that have come down to us (M. Baker) show the draftsmen using large flat tables.  Which would be uncomfortable - backache and spasms - but a near vertical board would need to be impractical in height.
A computer would be much easier -  but what is needed is a function that starts with:  define center -  define point on circumference  - draw arc. 
 
Least squares fit curves are not a favored method either  as far as my past examinations have found.    What is needed is a math formula that simulates what a long thin wooden batten does to connect three points.  The math formula used to smoothly connect three points in the drawing programs that I have examined show far less restraint in possible solutions than an actual wooden stick would allow.

This is for a bucket list project that is a long shot at best.
Is there a 2D drawing or CAD program that includes the following functions?
The ability to select and place a compass center and use it to scribe an arc between two points on the circumference.
Draw a spline curve using three or more points -  probably a least squares fit  curve function.
The program would ideally be a hobbyist level cost or a cloud subscription sort of critter.
The 16th and 17th century ship designers mostly used a straight edge,  compasses - large and small,  and flexible battens.   
This limited quiver of tools is why those hulls had a similar shape.  Most current drafting programs seem to totally ignore these old methods.
 

Oh well, it was worth taking the shot.  
It is appreciated that you offered what you have presented.

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.

Two thoughts about the rigging:
Both museums and builders here have hulls that stop with stub masts = no rigging
Do not look at rigging as a whole.  Think of it as one line going from its A to its B.  Add each individual one at a time.
 

First - thank you for your visit here.
 
 
I think that a significant number of us use machines with:
ID  1/2"
OD 4" max
OD 3"  when it is sufficient for the depth of cut
 
For our uses  it would make things more clear if you provided a table for TPI
Assume that the material being cut is dense hardwood Maple or harder  maximum depth is >1"
Max TPI  per thickness of cut  
 
We use expensive wood so we wish to minimize loss to kerf
So the table should also include minimum blade thickness per depth of cut to avoid blade flex. 
 
What we go by now is from an old Hobby Mill publication:
 
"For sheet stock above 3/16" or 4.5mm:  Use the I-293 .040 kerf blade. 
Actually you can use this blade on thinner stock but it has a thicker kerf (more waste) and a few less teeth than the I-292 blade (chipout sooner with thinner stock)
For stock between 3/32" (3mm) - 3/16" (4.5mm):  Use I-292 .030 kerf blade.   If there is chipout around 3/32", go to the #99 blade
For stock between 3/64" (1mm) - 3/32" (3mm):  Use #99 170T blade.  Main change in blade is the finer pitch
For stock thinner than 3/64" (1mm):  Use #100 224T blade."
 
These are probably the most often used blades.
If you have better experienced based suggestions there would probably be interest here.
 
For stock thinner than 3/64" (1mm):  Use #100 224T blade.
 

Two thoughts about the rigging:
Both museums and builders here have hulls that stop with stub masts = no rigging
Do not look at rigging as a whole.  Think of it as one line going from its A to its B.  Add each individual one at a time.
 

If you find that this project is practical,  you might consider becoming a site sponsor.  I do not know what the costs involved are, but your cartouche could contain images of the blades and the link go to a page with the blades..   A descriptor with each blade at your site could provide the wood thickness that it is designed to cut.   Sort of idiot proof the process.   Since the blades are small and not heavy,  you could explore the possibility of having economy mail to Europe or work a deal with someone in the EU.  -  recurring factors that show up here  - sort of like it might pay Jim Byrnes to find a Maw & Paw distributor in the EU and you both use it.