Wetted aspect is why the Falcon couldn't maneuver as well as SPARROW.

"Wetted Aspect" is a faulty theory that has been widely discredited. It does not apply to the planes as stated in the Wiki article and certainly not to missiles. And no, the Sparrow can not out turn the Falcon, or the Hawk for that matter. And neither can the AMRAAM for that matter!
Read a book by Daniel P. Rhymer on Aerodynamics and you will at least have the knowledge not to make such silly statements. Whether or not that will stop you from make such inane remarks is a different question all together!

Its called DRAG, you incompetent.

Because the early Sparrow steered with the forward set of wings, leaving the after set to stabilise the entire missile and thus prevent Body Lift, it was one of the LEAST MANEUVERABLE missiles on the planet! The latest versions steer with the aft wing set and is more than twice as maneuverable as the early version, but still no match for the Falcon, Phoenix, or Hawk!
Just as a teaser, think on this, the Falcon got FIVE Victories in SEA/RVN with the handicap of no proximity fuse! It had to hit the target to damage it!

My god, you are stupid.

Yes, it is, and it causes all un-powered vehicles traveling in the Atmosphere to slow down as they do so! If you go back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, I stated that "missiles with low Aspect Ratio wings trade range for maneuvering power and missiles with higher aspect Ratio wings trade maneuvering power for range"! Canard control missiles have the worst of both worlds!

Yes, it is, and it causes all un-powered vehicles traveling in the Atmosphere to slow down as they do so! If you go back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, I stated that "missiles with low Aspect Ratio wings trade range for maneuvering power and missiles with higher aspect Ratio wings trade maneuvering power for range"! Canard control missiles have the worst of both worlds!

Yes, it is, and it causes all un-powered vehicles traveling in the Atmosphere to slow down as they do so! If you go back to one of my earlier posts in this thread, I stated that "missiles with low Aspect Ratio wings trade range for maneuvering power and missiles with higher aspect Ratio wings trade maneuvering power for range"! Canard control missiles have the worst of both worlds!

Poor logic. Just because a missile is retired does not make it a failure. The First six versions of Sparrow were retired. They were Canard controlled for engineering reasons of packaging, nothing else. The Tail controlled Sparrow was a new from the ground up missile. All Sparrows will be retired sooner than later in favor of AMRAAM which itself has gone through at least four generations. It is the nature of the beast. Technology, that is. New replaces old.
There was/is nothing wrong with the aerodynamics of Falcon, Hawk, Phoenix and several other long cord winged missiles. They are products of the choices made during their design. Falcon has more internal volume than Sidewinder and thus could be made to have significantly more performance than that missile. (Sidewinder) The choice between types of wing planform could be made again and changed to meet whatever goals you desired in a more compact missile than Sidewinder and it's kin. I suspect that given the requirement for super maneuverability in short range missiles, much the same sort of missile would emerge. Given the L/D and Aspect Ratio of the existing wings and the newer types of PBX propellants, the new Falcon would have less structural Mass, a higher propellant fraction, larger seeker Aperture, AND with the right trade offs, both more range and more maneuverability than Sidewinder!