I watched the first fight with the Spit that augers. You did a nice job of suckering him into a nose-to-nose fight instead of a nose-to-tail fight, and I do the same thing routinely in the 109G-6. We both know that when we win fights like that, it's because the poor sod in the XVI doesn't know how to use his ride's strengths effectively. But that is not an example of "out-turning," or at the least it's misleading to call that "out-turning." Winning a turn-radius fight is very different from winning a turn-rate fight.
Unfortunently I'm on travel and filmviewer doesn't work on my laptop so I can't comment on the specific fight; however, the implication that the phrase "out-turning" only applies to either radius or rate is incorrect. These are the two fundamental measurements of turn performance and are useful for a basic understanding and comparison of airframe capabilities; however, they alone do not completely define an aircraft's turn performance nor determine which aircraft can "out-turn" another except in a very narrowly defined situation.
There are several additional components which make up an aircraft's true ability to "turn" including P
s and handling qualities. An aircraft with superior P
s is usually more capable of sustained turns and using the vertical to capitalize on it's best turn radius (high reversal) or turn rate (low reversal for instance). An aircraft which has poor handling qualities can have difficulty getting the best performance in either rate or radius measurements.
The fact of the matter is that many aircraft can, in fact, out-turn a supposedly "better turning" fighter and it doesn't matter if it's done through better radius, better rate, energy control, or, more likely, a combination of of these. If he's in a turn-fight and gains angles through maneuvers and good choice of rate/radius combinations then he is "out-turning" his opponent.