Although the planar nature of the F-14s midbody is interesting
(it provides 72% of the lift at Mach 2 for example), the assertion
that this is special and allows for greater maneuverability seems
to be flawed to me.
Firstly, all aircraft to some extent are able to generate lift
from their fuselage-- the F-15 for example, while having a
conventional layout for a fighter jet, is able to fly and land on
only 1 wing-- indicating that the fuselage lift is very significant
as well.
Next, the nosecone and cockpit of a fighter jet disrupt the
airflow over the fuselage-- at high angles of attack, the fuselage
would 'stall' before the wings 'stalled' --thus fuselage lift
cannot be a contributor to low speed maneuverability.
Finally, the distribution of mass over a greater transverse
plane (i.e. the aircraft being wider) actually increases the
angular inertia of the aircraft-- thus for a given wingspan it
would be harder for the aircraft to roll. IIRC, the F-14 was
designed as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, so
linear velocity and stability for weapons launch would be
prioritised over maneuverability.
The F-14 was a unique airplane but let's not make it out to be
what it clearly is not. It was designed for long range defence
against Russian bombers, not dogfighting with fighters.
But I do find the F-14's shape pretty interesting.
Wait a second. With the demise of the Tomcat doesn't it spell
the end of the NFOs as well?
And the Gulf War Bombcats! Can't forget that.
