Fixes were easy.
Just because you have a huge amount of fuel tankage, doesn't mean you have to top off the tanks for all missions. Same for ammo load.
2nd, rather than the Wright Radial that had reliability issues in that installation, go for the Pratt&Whitney with the R-1830-76, with a two stage supercharger that ended up in the F4F
Fixes were easy.
Just because you have a huge amount of fuel tankage, doesn't mean you have to top off the tanks for all missions. Same for ammo load.
2nd, rather than the Wright Radial that had reliability issues in that installation, go for the Pratt&Whitney with the R-1830-76, with a two stage supercharger that ended up in the F4F
That's what the Dutch did...
Different diameter engines (54" vs 48" +/-). Would you change any of the sheet metal up front?
I would profoundly disagree with the statement that USN fighter tactics were notably inferior to those of the Finns. The Finns fought an opponent who played in the F2A's wheelhouse and did it in an ideal weather environment. As you note, the Finns were able to pull several hundred pounds of equipment off their Buffaloes, something that made a considerable difference.
I had read about the US Catalina before, but not the 'training mission' part. Thanks for the details.
Wonder how many similar 'training missions' were flown over convoy routes during the Neutrality Patrol era?
I would note here, that there were clear tactical differences between the Red Air Force and the FAA. Most notably, Finns were already using the WW2 air tactics during the Winter War while the Soviets were still more or less stuck in the thinking of Inter-War Era. When the war started, Finns had already independently developed similar tactics and training techniques which many other countries took only into usage after they had had their first lessons of WW2. Not to disagree with your post, just to note that there were many contributing factors in play here.