LEOCh
We are very unlikely to get the actual MAX stability data from Boeing but the Cm versus alpha data is more likely to be something on the left (similar to that suggested in Bjorn's corner at Leeham news). But many reasonably technical writers are describing something more like on the right. This seems unlikely because certification requires the aircraft to be safely flyable without stability augmentation.
Thanks for your very informative comments.
The one quoted relates to something that puzzled me over the weekend. Several posters on social media virulently insisted that the MAX is a fundamentally unstable aircraft, which should never have been certified (MCAS notwithstanding).
Protestations to the contrary were met with incredulity, and describing the subtle details of elevator feedback and stabiliser trim deepened this reaction. It was inplied that we were shills, or knew nothing about aerodynamics, or that regulatory compliance was cheating.
I assumed this was just a handful of lunatics, but your comment indicates some widespread circulation of these ideas. The understandable silence from Boeing and the FAA does nothing to dampen the reaction, and they have a major uphill battle ahead.
I hope those 'conspiracy' theories do not extend further, since they seem immune to carefully reasoned discussion. This concern may be justified, given the limited aviation knowledge of the current Senate Transportation Commitee.
It may be that the only way to regain trust and move forward would be an unprecedented level of transparency, not seen in recent
PR-driven aircraft launches.