Bob Cleek

I had a passing familiarity with Cangarda. She was restored by Jeff Rutherford's shop in Richmond, CA, in my neck of the woods. A buddy of mine attended to her relaunching and very nearly "dumped" her in that exercise.
 
 
 
 
I'd think Jeff Rutherford would know how you could locate whatever lines and plans drawings may be available for her. See: Rutherford's Boatshop (rutherfordboats.com)

I had a passing familiarity with Cangarda. She was restored by Jeff Rutherford's shop in Richmond, CA, in my neck of the woods. A buddy of mine attended to her relaunching and very nearly "dumped" her in that exercise.
 
 
 
 
I'd think Jeff Rutherford would know how you could locate whatever lines and plans drawings may be available for her. See: Rutherford's Boatshop (rutherfordboats.com)

Keith - yes I have looked at Ena but I am also looking at this:-https://www.sandemanyachtcompany.co.uk/yacht/618/pusey-and-jones-126-ft-steam-yacht-19012009. As yet i haven't found the hull lines anywhere.
 
 

Ialmost forgot a unique and important feature of this little gem.   I got so used to it I thought it was a standard feature on all disc sanders but its not.  It is such a timesaver.  This sander has a removable disc.  If you examine the picture below, you can see the disc is in two halves.  This makes switching grits so much easier.  In fact with the spare disc you can have one ready alongside the machine with a different grit.    It has 3/32 hex driver with it so you can remove it.  The front disc is removed from the back of the disc through the slot on top of the motor mount,  there are 3 screws that mount the front disc to the back.   So removing the sandpaper is easier.  You remove the entire disc and swap out the sandpaper and then place the disc back in the machine.  You could literally buy several of these discs and have them all ready with sandpaper and you are ready for the quick change. 
 

How did the Pie turn out? 

Want a right angle? Don't forget the 3, 4, 5 triangle. Using that method you can obtain a right angle of any size within the precision of your measuring tools and your ability to use them. Lots of Data on the net, I have used the method many times on paper, wood and ground, it maters not what linier units you choose to use. Mark your corner, lay a base line out and mark as precisely as you can 4 units from the corner, from that point measure 5 units and scribe an arc near where you expect the corner to be, return to the corner and make another arc at 3 units from the corner, the intersection of the two arcs is the final corner of your 90°, 3, 4, 5 triangle    

My practice is the same as yours. I often use styrofoam packing boxes and blocks with the hull shape cut out of them for work stands. When I have occasion to want to hold a hull at an odd angle to work on it my own weapon of choice is my Zyliss vise with its patternmaker's vise clamping features. The Zyliss has four inch jaws, as I recall. The Stanley multi-angle hobby vise has three inch jaws. I'd expect that would be sufficient to hold a hull with a 12 or even an 18 inch keel adequately. 
 
The OP asked for comment on whether there was "a more affordable alternative to the Keel Klamper." Hence my recommendation of the Stanley unit, based upon ability to do the job, value for the money, and price point. 
 
 
 

My practice is the same as yours. I often use styrofoam packing boxes and blocks with the hull shape cut out of them for work stands. When I have occasion to want to hold a hull at an odd angle to work on it my own weapon of choice is my Zyliss vise with its patternmaker's vise clamping features. The Zyliss has four inch jaws, as I recall. The Stanley multi-angle hobby vise has three inch jaws. I'd expect that would be sufficient to hold a hull with a 12 or even an 18 inch keel adequately. 
 
The OP asked for comment on whether there was "a more affordable alternative to the Keel Klamper." Hence my recommendation of the Stanley unit, based upon ability to do the job, value for the money, and price point. 
 
 
 

I must be missing something because I have never used a keel clamp. I just tend to knock up a support cradle from scrap wood and have never felt the need for anything better. As far as the Stanley vice is concerned I have one and wouldn’t recommend it for anything but the very smallest boats - nothing more than a few inches long.

My practice is to do any spraying outdoors with a large shop fan to send an airstream away from me. I don't use spray booths because I don't want to concentrate volatile fumes in hoses where they might ignite. 

I love the smell of automotive lacquer in the morning. It smells like... like victory!  

This isn't any sort of contest between polyurethane and shellac. I'm not denigrating any particular finishing option, as I thought I made quite clear in my post.  It was my intent to simply outline the differences between the two. I have no investment the choices anybody makes when finishing a model. As I said, "It's all just a matter of taste." I am sorry that I apparently touched a nerve of some sort. That was neither intended nor expected.
 

Might it be that the flakes absorb some ambient moisture over time and that causes the problems with dissolving completely? Just a guess. 

Actually, shellac is a ground-up resin that is secreted by female lac beetles to build self-protective tubes (sort of like termites) from which they suck the sap from the trees upon which they live. Shellac is collected by scraping the tubes from the trees, then heating them to liquify the shellac, and straining the liquid shellac to remove impurities. Modelers who use shellac can reassure animal rights activists by labeling their models: "No beetles were harmed during the making of this model."  
 
Shellac is also edible! They use it to put a shine on apples and citrus fruit for the supermarkets and to make jelly beans shiny.
 

Wipe-on polyurethane is simply full-strength polyurethane thinned down with solvent ("paint thinner"). Solvent is a lot cheaper than the base polyurethane coating, so you are paying a lot of extra money for half the polyurethane canned in a "wipe-on" pre-thinned consistency. It's far higher in VOCs than alcohol, so you've got the toxic fumes and environmental downside to consider and its solvent-required clean up can be somewhat of pain, however small those considerations may be in scale model amounts. (Polymerizing polyurethane produces an amalgam of toxic compounds that can be extremely toxic when released as fumes into the indoor air.)  This "value added for DIY marketing" seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. I've heard that Minwax doesn't export their "wipe-on" product in Europe because the apparently more sophisticated European market realizes thinning the product yields the same result at lower cost. 
 
That said, polyurethane is a great finish. It is highly abrasion-resistant and impervious to liquids, particularly alcohol, which absolutely makes it the best choice for things like hardwood floors, table and bar tops, and the like. When thinned, It yields a nice finish on any bare wood and can be applied by unskilled finishers by simply wiping it on with a rag.  
 
Shellac is dissolved in alcohol and is easier to clean up without any toxic risks. It doesn't have the abrasion-resistance of polyurethane, and spilling an alcoholic beverage on it will require restoring the finish as the alcohol will dissolve the shellacked finish. However, this characteristic is an advantage in modeling, particularly when shellac is used to stiffen catenaries in rigging line, to secure rigging knots, and as an adhesive. Shellac can be used in a thick suspension as an adhesive and thinned as desired for a variety of finish effects. Obviously, polyurethane's abrasion-resistance and imperviousness to alcohol is unnecessary in modeling applications so shellac's lack thereof is of no moment.
 
About the only reasons I would consider sound for favoring shellac over polyurethane for modeling applications are 1) the uncertainty of polyurethane's long-term archival qualities, although for the relatively short period polyurethane has been around, it's not exhibited any tendency to deteriorate. 2) Shellac and its alcohol solvent is less expensive than wipe-on polyurethane, though not by much. 3) Shellac apparently has a better shelf life than polyurethane coatings and won't start polymerizing upon exposure to air and "go bad in the can." 4) Shellac can be easily removed with alcohol at any time after it "dries" by the alcohol's evaporation. Polyurethane cannot be easily removed with solvent once it polymerizes. Very aggressive strippers or mechanical removal is required once it's "cured."
 
I don't think the any of the reasons for or against both polyurethane finishes and shellac are "silly," they're just a matter of taste. As the saying goes, "Ya gotta dance with the girl ya brought" and it's bad form to judge another guy's date harshly. It's all just a matter of taste.

Likely the simpler solution is just adding balsa fillers between the bulkheads you have, assuming the reason is to aid in planking. Since you should fair the bulkheads the size of an additional one would take care of itself in the fairing process. 

Thanks guys.
lots to digest here.
leaning towards the Stanley clamp/vise as we’re still working on the hull.
any other suggestions are still appreciated.
thanks again

My practice is to do any spraying outdoors with a large shop fan to send an airstream away from me. I don't use spray booths because I don't want to concentrate volatile fumes in hoses where they might ignite. 

I love the smell of automotive lacquer in the morning. It smells like... like victory!