That´s correct for mid 1942, the period the flight manual was referring to after it´s final revision in april 1942 but You can´t use that for earlier dates without other sources to back up such a claim.The Fulmar I never operated with 87 octane fuel in combat and the manual states:
"Operational units 100 octane, other units 87 octane or higher". Both engines were combat approved for full boost (9/12 lbs) at any altitude and 3000rpm and the manual states:
Cruise speed referenced to for the Fi-167 is at "Bodennähe" and thus below and not at crit altitude. In "Bodennähe" IAS and TAS are identic. 15,000ft is way beyond the FULMAR´s crit altitude, which is 6,600 ft/9000ft, dependign on boost. There is little difference between IAS and TAS at such low altitude, altough it can be more dramatic in higher altitudes. You can take the point about dropping loads similarely to the Fulmar as well.Regarding cruising speed, the speeds given for the Fulmar in the manual are in IAS but those for the Fi-167 are probably TAS at its most favourable altitude. At 15000ft, the IAS cruise for a Fulmar is 130 knots = ~169 knots TAS. The Fi-167 speeds are also given at optimum altitude, and with a bomb load it's speed and climb rate will fall further.
As mentioned previously, while I see that the Fulmar has advantages it´s not a one way situation dogfighting the nimble Fieseler because the FULMAR´s main assets are 8 x 0.3cal, dive and top end speed only. The Ju-87 is not a tougher opponent (it´s slower on the deck with 160kts and slightly faster with 189kts at 16,405ft). It´s very maneuverable but not as extreme in the low speed realm and neither the acceleration nor the climb is as good as the FULMAR or Fieseler. The FULMAR has more options dogfighting a Ju-87 than a Fieseler. Against the Bf-109T, I am still searching for a single aspect where the FULMAR is competetive.