Jaager

I have not seen the term before, but on an open boat, the painter is a section of rope at the bow that is used to tie it to the back of the ship - or whatever else is towing it.   It supplies a metaphor? for removing someone from your support: " cutting the painter".   To fit that name, I would guess that the chain is a relatively short length with the distant end not attached to anything - until it is used to temporarily secure an anchor or boat.
 
Looking at your deadeyes,  I wonder if a two part strop would work?  
1- a belt that wraps around the body with ends that meet at the bottom.
2- a hole in the deadeye at that bottom site where an eye is glued into the hole.  The end of the eye being a pointed tap - twisted?
 
Would this be faster to mass produce?  I can see that a two part epoxy would make this a "forever" unit.

It is not an ideal shape for me, but I tried another armchair experiment.
 
I checked McMaster-Carr and they have Aluminum "U" bar stock with dimensions that are close.  A 2 foot bar is <$50.  
a box of 1/8"-1/4" ( or what works) long enough thumb screws
A pilot drill bit and a tap 
How many can be had  depends on how wide are the slices  but if the whole bar is done, I am betting that the cost per unit would be less than ready made.

Welcome Ian,
 
A bit that may help you avoid becoming frustrated and quitting when you get into a build -  Try to avoid having any expectations about how wooden ship models are built based on any previous experience with plastic kits.   This is a different world.  It predated plastic kits and has different traditions.  Tis not  patience that you'll be wanting, it is perseverance  and a willingness to do research -  on a multitude of skill techniques, and on appropriate materials,  as well as on vessel specific factors.  The lack of stand alone completeness in a wooden ship  model kit  can be surprise hurdle  that few who enter this on a whim manage to surmount.

Welcome Ian,
 
A bit that may help you avoid becoming frustrated and quitting when you get into a build -  Try to avoid having any expectations about how wooden ship models are built based on any previous experience with plastic kits.   This is a different world.  It predated plastic kits and has different traditions.  Tis not  patience that you'll be wanting, it is perseverance  and a willingness to do research -  on a multitude of skill techniques, and on appropriate materials,  as well as on vessel specific factors.  The lack of stand alone completeness in a wooden ship  model kit  can be surprise hurdle  that few who enter this on a whim manage to surmount.

Welcome Ian,
 
A bit that may help you avoid becoming frustrated and quitting when you get into a build -  Try to avoid having any expectations about how wooden ship models are built based on any previous experience with plastic kits.   This is a different world.  It predated plastic kits and has different traditions.  Tis not  patience that you'll be wanting, it is perseverance  and a willingness to do research -  on a multitude of skill techniques, and on appropriate materials,  as well as on vessel specific factors.  The lack of stand alone completeness in a wooden ship  model kit  can be surprise hurdle  that few who enter this on a whim manage to surmount.

Welcome Ian,
 
A bit that may help you avoid becoming frustrated and quitting when you get into a build -  Try to avoid having any expectations about how wooden ship models are built based on any previous experience with plastic kits.   This is a different world.  It predated plastic kits and has different traditions.  Tis not  patience that you'll be wanting, it is perseverance  and a willingness to do research -  on a multitude of skill techniques, and on appropriate materials,  as well as on vessel specific factors.  The lack of stand alone completeness in a wooden ship  model kit  can be surprise hurdle  that few who enter this on a whim manage to surmount.

It is not an ideal shape for me, but I tried another armchair experiment.
 
I checked McMaster-Carr and they have Aluminum "U" bar stock with dimensions that are close.  A 2 foot bar is <$50.  
a box of 1/8"-1/4" ( or what works) long enough thumb screws
A pilot drill bit and a tap 
How many can be had  depends on how wide are the slices  but if the whole bar is done, I am betting that the cost per unit would be less than ready made.

Kearnold,
 
If this is not 'one-off' model and you intend to build others, you might consider using this as an opportunity to dip your toe into the scratch build world.  Replace the wooden component castings with dublicates that you fabricate using actual scale appropriate wood.  You should research the actual scantlings of the parts to be built.  The castings may be over scale to begin with. 
If you can make friends with a near by modeler who has the proper tools, The choice of wood species available to you is much greater than that available to those who fabricate hulls.  The parts that you need can come from the same stock as those turning pens since it is all small.   The choices available as 4x4 and 8x4 lumber are much fewer in number.

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.

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.

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.

It is not an ideal shape for me, but I tried another armchair experiment.
 
I checked McMaster-Carr and they have Aluminum "U" bar stock with dimensions that are close.  A 2 foot bar is <$50.  
a box of 1/8"-1/4" ( or what works) long enough thumb screws
A pilot drill bit and a tap 
How many can be had  depends on how wide are the slices  but if the whole bar is done, I am betting that the cost per unit would be less than ready made.

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.
 

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