Jaager

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

Beech would be an appropriate wood for a 1:60 keel.   But not a lot of help as something readily available as a economical domestic species in the Philippines.
The tropics in South America have several desirable species,  so the climate does not preclude the possibility of a domestic at reasonable cost per BF. 
From just reading the Wood-Database only Hard Milkwood comes up as a possible.  It may take making friends with an old crotchety independent hardwood sawmiller to get a lead and source for domestic lumber with appropriate  characteristics and get it in lumber form.  With a chainsaw, a kiln, and a bandsaw, no tree would be safe - theoretically.

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

Beech would be an appropriate wood for a 1:60 keel.   But not a lot of help as something readily available as a economical domestic species in the Philippines.
The tropics in South America have several desirable species,  so the climate does not preclude the possibility of a domestic at reasonable cost per BF. 
From just reading the Wood-Database only Hard Milkwood comes up as a possible.  It may take making friends with an old crotchety independent hardwood sawmiller to get a lead and source for domestic lumber with appropriate  characteristics and get it in lumber form.  With a chainsaw, a kiln, and a bandsaw, no tree would be safe - theoretically.

What I mean by tunnel vision in this situation is to focus on building Roar Ege as close to the way that Billing as designed it.  I think that any time and effort spent on trying to augment or add realism would be better spent on a later project.  A time tested, perhaps THE time tested, path into scratch building is to augment a kit with more sophisticated elements.  I think that this particular kit has too much that is too far from real.   It would be like starting in a deep hole.
 
In preparation for composing what is real (or at least my admitted limited knowledge of what is real in Viking practice), I scanned all of the Viking kit build logs.  Which are authentic looking?
At least as far as the hull and the planking - which is pretty much my area of focus.
Realistic seems to be  Marine Models Dragon class solid carved, Dusek Gokstad,  Dusek Knarr, Artesania Latina long boat.  The sheer of all is sort of flat.    Anything but realistic Billing Oseberg, Roar Ege,  and Amati Drakkar.
 
I thought that the impossible planking of Amati: 
and Roar Ege, which is a bit less cartoon -  and pointing out that the planking was freed from Oak trunks/balks using a maul and wedges - I don't see how an individual smith could fabricate a saw.  For your kit, the green box is the plank that this plank would have to be spilled from:
That these extreme - probably for show - stem and stern were large carved timbers - not actual planks: 
And these two links are from logs here:
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29710-skuldelev-wreck-3-viking-knarr-by-antyronnen-billing-boats-120/   post 4  pic 4
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/20332-viking-longship-by-binho-dusek-scale-172-model-based-on-the-11th-century-skuldelev-2-wreck/  post 1  pic 4
 
That the planks had lands in the carved piece: 
Then I realized that the kits with these extreme curves on their planking were never intended to be realistic.  It is a cynical method to avoid having to deal with providing the proper stemson and sternson.   At least for Roar Ege,  I think that the planks are far too wide.   The extreme twist that includes countervailing  directions for the kit planking at each end  is something that I see as being a frustrating combat for a builder.
 
Being totally outside my Universe,  I am not qualified to rule on which short cuts are acceptable in a kit.
 
Oh,  about one of my POB terminology complaints -  on most POB ships, the central spine fills the midline of the whole hull. Usually it reaches up to the lowest deck being included in the model.  For Roar Ege, that part may only be as much as the actual keel.  In this situation naming it "keel" would be correct.   The possible horrible part would be if it is plywood, with end grain showing where it should not be.
 
😉   This is meant to be fun.   Even if we were part of a university naval architecture department/museum and hair splitting stroum und drang  - actual models are no longer in favor.  Those decisions seem to be in the control of individuals who have the equivalent of a life long continuous release LSD depot somewhere in their body.
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

About 1000 years later, and on carvel planking, this plank is the garboard plank. 
OK, I just checked Leather  (CLINKER BOATBUILDING,  John Leather, IMP, 1973)  and  Simmons (LAPSTRAKE BOATBUILDING , Walter Simmons, IMP, 1978)
 and they both name it the garboard.
If it is any consolation, here is a quote from Simmons:  "The garboard that I am considering at the moment is a plank with considerable fore and aft twist, and it requires more work to fit properly than any other plank on the boat.  To make it fit to the rabbet as well as to fixed lining marks can stir up ulcers."
 
Michael,  are you considering a scratch build of a viking boat?  If so, I have some factors about the planking that different from what Billing and Amati burden a builder with.
 
So far, this kit seems to be fulfilling its primary purpose,  your introduction into all this,  and a beginning indication for what you need to learn.  You should probably use tunnel vision and view this kit as a unique world unto itself.
 
 

The Wood-Database does not have much specific for your part of the world.  I would try to find a local hardwood sawmill and see if they have a local wood that is fine texture, no pores large enough to see, straight grain.  Something that looks like Oak or Elm that has been scaled down 50 times.  If you use actual Oak, the grain, pores, and texture will be 50-100 times too large.
There is no tree species with grain that small.  It could not transport water thru tubes that small.  There are however species that are a whole lot closer to scale than is any nutwood.
 
Basswood and Linden have excellent grain characteristics, but their surface is soooo fuzzy.

No way would I pay that much for a machine like that.  I would question its ability to move enough air to do the job.
 
For in the house - at the bench - I use a Kenmore Blue Magic small canister vac.  It uses a collection bag - which is a pain, but otherwise does the job.
 
The handle at the end of the hose has the ON-OFF - which is a slide power control.
I attached the handle to the end of a desk lamp  arm (less the bulb part) using cable ties.
There are desk lamps and THERE ARE DESK LAMPS -  I prefer serious articulation, a desk clamp with some mass,  and arms that will stay in position -no weak wingnuts.
The handle has some weight to it.
 
It took some serious jury rigging to get a hose to fit the opening in the handle and also fit the dust collection port on my Byrnes disc sander. 
I use the tablesaw and thickness sander in my garage.  They are not about finesse.  The disc sander is.
 
An additional advantage is that it can be used to clear stair treads of dust.

I agree.  Going back to the baseline and defining any problem is key to getting things done correctly.
 
There is no standard process.  What, if any, color adjustment depends on the starting material.
 
There are lots of How To articles covering block making.  An easy method for mass production and minimal individual block manipulation is a goal for many.
 
One possible beginning:
If you have plastic blocks from a kit -  then perhaps using a series of coats of a dilute enamel paint that is the desired wood shade?  
String the blocks on wire and dip them over and over?  Light touch as far as pigment density per coat?   On small  blocks - I see brush application being frustrating.  Using an aerosol application on a sphere - a lot of manipulation of the target - awkward manipulation.     

The first generation acrylic paints had icky surface texture - like chalk- the paintings that I saw - I did not care for the look. But the molecules are hydrophilic. They play nice with water.  Alcohol and acrylic molecules may not play nice together - or - a shade that is a mixture of pigments may have some molecules having a different affinity and the color come out different.
 
 
The lack of precision in the use of terminology leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
A dye has a solvent.  It is a true solution. individual molecules evenly dispersed in the solvent.  No settling, no change in content over time.  Where the solvent goes, the dye molecules also go.
A stain has a vehicle.  The pigment particles - a clump of pigment molecules - are temporarily suspended in the liquid carrier.  They settle out if left alone.  They stay on the surface of wood.
 
The dyes that I am familiar with are hydrophilic - they dissolve in water or alcohol - I think alcohol is preferable for scale work.  Surface fibers of wood do not swell with alcohol, they do with wood.
Some old style stains are organic solvent based.  Think of them as semi transparent paints that are wood colored.  Some stains must also contain dyes if they are featured as being "penetrating".
I suspect that an acrylic stain - if such exist - will use water as a carrier - an awful prospect to imagine as far as ending with a smooth surface.
I wonder if the fanatics who ban VOC products use water in their engines? 
 
Dyes are for high quality wood.  As with a fabric dye, the internal substance of the wood becomes the new color.  The grain is unaffected.  Other than the color, the surface is unaffected.  PVA still bonds it.
Stains are for wood with unremarkable grain.  The pigment sits on the surface.   I think a stain will either need a clear overcoat (a varnish - in the original meaning of that word - before there was commercial anything doing that)  or will also contain a polymerizing clear component (varnish stain) or a plastic (polyurethane).  

Pine is good.  I use a lot of it.
There is another wood that is worth a look.  Goodreau Sawmill & Woodworking has Yellow Poplar that costs about the same as their White Pine.
If your focus was a couple hundred years earlier - they also have Hard Maple, Black Cherry, Beech.
They also have the usual nutwood species whose grain and open pores do not scale.
 
I would place a bet that you will come to regret  having a large solid wood carved hull.  The rules that Dana Wegner developed for USN museum acquisitions - rules that specify a hollow hull, are probably the result of lessons paid for from disasters reflected by solid hulls.
 

No way would I pay that much for a machine like that.  I would question its ability to move enough air to do the job.
 
For in the house - at the bench - I use a Kenmore Blue Magic small canister vac.  It uses a collection bag - which is a pain, but otherwise does the job.
 
The handle at the end of the hose has the ON-OFF - which is a slide power control.
I attached the handle to the end of a desk lamp  arm (less the bulb part) using cable ties.
There are desk lamps and THERE ARE DESK LAMPS -  I prefer serious articulation, a desk clamp with some mass,  and arms that will stay in position -no weak wingnuts.
The handle has some weight to it.
 
It took some serious jury rigging to get a hose to fit the opening in the handle and also fit the dust collection port on my Byrnes disc sander. 
I use the tablesaw and thickness sander in my garage.  They are not about finesse.  The disc sander is.
 
An additional advantage is that it can be used to clear stair treads of dust.

No way would I pay that much for a machine like that.  I would question its ability to move enough air to do the job.
 
For in the house - at the bench - I use a Kenmore Blue Magic small canister vac.  It uses a collection bag - which is a pain, but otherwise does the job.
 
The handle at the end of the hose has the ON-OFF - which is a slide power control.
I attached the handle to the end of a desk lamp  arm (less the bulb part) using cable ties.
There are desk lamps and THERE ARE DESK LAMPS -  I prefer serious articulation, a desk clamp with some mass,  and arms that will stay in position -no weak wingnuts.
The handle has some weight to it.
 
It took some serious jury rigging to get a hose to fit the opening in the handle and also fit the dust collection port on my Byrnes disc sander. 
I use the tablesaw and thickness sander in my garage.  They are not about finesse.  The disc sander is.
 
An additional advantage is that it can be used to clear stair treads of dust.

I agree.  Going back to the baseline and defining any problem is key to getting things done correctly.
 
There is no standard process.  What, if any, color adjustment depends on the starting material.
 
There are lots of How To articles covering block making.  An easy method for mass production and minimal individual block manipulation is a goal for many.
 
One possible beginning:
If you have plastic blocks from a kit -  then perhaps using a series of coats of a dilute enamel paint that is the desired wood shade?  
String the blocks on wire and dip them over and over?  Light touch as far as pigment density per coat?   On small  blocks - I see brush application being frustrating.  Using an aerosol application on a sphere - a lot of manipulation of the target - awkward manipulation.     

The first generation acrylic paints had icky surface texture - like chalk- the paintings that I saw - I did not care for the look. But the molecules are hydrophilic. They play nice with water.  Alcohol and acrylic molecules may not play nice together - or - a shade that is a mixture of pigments may have some molecules having a different affinity and the color come out different.
 
 
The lack of precision in the use of terminology leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
A dye has a solvent.  It is a true solution. individual molecules evenly dispersed in the solvent.  No settling, no change in content over time.  Where the solvent goes, the dye molecules also go.
A stain has a vehicle.  The pigment particles - a clump of pigment molecules - are temporarily suspended in the liquid carrier.  They settle out if left alone.  They stay on the surface of wood.
 
The dyes that I am familiar with are hydrophilic - they dissolve in water or alcohol - I think alcohol is preferable for scale work.  Surface fibers of wood do not swell with alcohol, they do with wood.
Some old style stains are organic solvent based.  Think of them as semi transparent paints that are wood colored.  Some stains must also contain dyes if they are featured as being "penetrating".
I suspect that an acrylic stain - if such exist - will use water as a carrier - an awful prospect to imagine as far as ending with a smooth surface.
I wonder if the fanatics who ban VOC products use water in their engines? 
 
Dyes are for high quality wood.  As with a fabric dye, the internal substance of the wood becomes the new color.  The grain is unaffected.  Other than the color, the surface is unaffected.  PVA still bonds it.
Stains are for wood with unremarkable grain.  The pigment sits on the surface.   I think a stain will either need a clear overcoat (a varnish - in the original meaning of that word - before there was commercial anything doing that)  or will also contain a polymerizing clear component (varnish stain) or a plastic (polyurethane).  

The Wood-Database does not have much specific for your part of the world.  I would try to find a local hardwood sawmill and see if they have a local wood that is fine texture, no pores large enough to see, straight grain.  Something that looks like Oak or Elm that has been scaled down 50 times.  If you use actual Oak, the grain, pores, and texture will be 50-100 times too large.
There is no tree species with grain that small.  It could not transport water thru tubes that small.  There are however species that are a whole lot closer to scale than is any nutwood.
 
Basswood and Linden have excellent grain characteristics, but their surface is soooo fuzzy.

The 3rd edition that I have has two foldout sheets - not all that large.  They are not what I would call plans, never mind "working plans".
The missing plans are no loss.  The book itself was bush league in its time.
 
The S.I. sells 1/4" scale copies of the plans in Chapelle's books.  There is a fair selection of 1850's clipper ships.
 
The site with downloads of the plans from Wm Webb's Folio has lines and mast/sail plans for Black Hawk - Challenge -  Comet - Flying Dutchman - Gazelle - Swordfish - Young America
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/36455-ship-plan-sources-william-h-webb-plans-and-a-japanese-topsail-schooner/
 
The clippers were about as large as a wooden sailing vessel could be.  This puts them in an unfortunate situation.  A model with a scale large enough to include detail is also one that will take over the room that it is in.   A model whose size is one that you can live with will require miniaturist skills.  See the work of @rwiederrich in the scratch section for a view of what is involved.

No way would I pay that much for a machine like that.  I would question its ability to move enough air to do the job.
 
For in the house - at the bench - I use a Kenmore Blue Magic small canister vac.  It uses a collection bag - which is a pain, but otherwise does the job.
 
The handle at the end of the hose has the ON-OFF - which is a slide power control.
I attached the handle to the end of a desk lamp  arm (less the bulb part) using cable ties.
There are desk lamps and THERE ARE DESK LAMPS -  I prefer serious articulation, a desk clamp with some mass,  and arms that will stay in position -no weak wingnuts.
The handle has some weight to it.
 
It took some serious jury rigging to get a hose to fit the opening in the handle and also fit the dust collection port on my Byrnes disc sander. 
I use the tablesaw and thickness sander in my garage.  They are not about finesse.  The disc sander is.
 
An additional advantage is that it can be used to clear stair treads of dust.