This is the same mix of contradictions all along. I said the Fulmar was viable against relatively low performance unescorted bombers, which is what almost all its successes were, as have been documented in the thread. In the last part you seem to agree, but in first part seem to suggest Fulmars would have stood any chance against IJN Zero units of 1942 in some other circumstance; not unless some uniquely favorable circumstance. Hurricanes had remarkably few successful combats against Zeroes or Japanese Army Type 1's across an entire 2 year period through the end of *1943*, kill ratio 5:1 in favor of the Japanese fighters and hardly any better for the Hurricane in 1943 than 1942*, especially notable in view of the general trend against the Japanese air arms in 1943. The Hurricane's consistent lack of success against the early war Japanese fighters is one fact making it obvious the Fulmar would have been meat on the table to the same opposition, if flown by the same or similar air arm, as it would have been. And the Zero was of course operational (albeit in small numbers, but a small number dictating the terms of the air war over a large theater, China) in 1940, not a brand new plane in 1942.A formation of Fulmars were caught taking off and 4 were shot down, and at least 3 of them probably still had their landing gear down. This is hardly indicative of anything. Fighting at altitude the Fulmars faired much better (as did the Hurricanes) over Ceylon. However, no one, least of all me, is claiming that the Fulmar was a viable fighter in 1942 against modern single engine fighters. However when introduced it compared favourably to other CV borne fighters and it proved to be effective in combat, as my examples above demonstrate.
*according to each side's loss report, including only combats where both side's losses are known, see Bloody Shambles and Air War for Burma. In 1942, Hurricanes downed 6 Zeroes for 35 air combat losses, 4 Type 1's for 20 losses; in 1943 no Zeroes for 3 losses, 12 Type 1's for 55 losses.
Joe