[Skooz]

The Zero completely outclassed anything the USA could put into the sky at the beginning of the war. That the F4F had a positive kill ration is due to tactics, such as the Thatch Weave, that were implemented to negate the Zero's superior speed an maneuverability.

Once the F6F and the F4U came along, Zeros were outclassed, but were still far more manueverable.

Even at the end of the war, pilots in the Pacific were told "Never dogfight a Zero."

[Strategerist]

The Zero completely outclassed anything the USA could put into the sky at the beginning of the war.

No it didn't. It was seriously deficient in durability, roll rate at high speeds, dive speed, compared to the F4F, P-40, etc.

Turn radius is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, almost irrelevant component of air combat.

That the F4F had a positive kill ration is due to tactics

If it had a positive kill ratio then it wasn't "outclassed"...end of story. It means the F4F was a better aircraft when its advantages over the Zero were used properly.

Even at the end of the war, pilots in the Pacific were told "Never dogfight a Zero."

Actually it's generally true to avoid dogfights at all costs, in almost any aircraft. Almost nobody became an ace in World War II by dogfighting; 90%+ of kills were of aircraft that never saw their attacker.

What World War II revealed was that buzzing around in tight turns in dogfights was a loser strategy, and the Zero was a loser aircraft designed for that losing strategy. "Boom and Zoom" (diving from above, attack, climb, rinse, repeat) reigned supreme.