Salute!
As several have opined very early, even a partilal FBW implementation would have solved the Max "control force versus AoA" problem. It would have been expensive to go full authority as in the 'bus and the fighter types we have had for 40 years. But considering the existing STS feature, I do not understand why they could not have done something sinilar abd not have the "bang - bang" stab movement at an obscene rate and length of application. Sheesh. How come they couldn't get a waiver of some sort.
@ Rivets.......As far as the feel and force goes, thousands of :bus drivers seem to have no problems with their lack of force feedback. Feedback on that stick and on the one I flew yeards ago was just a spring or piezo element that related force to commanded gee or roll rate. Besides gees, the visual feedback of the aircraft's performance/attitude was a biggie.
As with any spring, the force required to move the thing increases per unit of displacement. That's the 'bus. Our Viper was a fairly linear force until 34 or 35 pounds ( the 9 gee command) and the stick moved about an eigth of an inch, so it was a very stiff spring compared to the bus, but also very precise, As with the Luscombe and Champ I flew as a yute, precision required one to use forces more than large physical displacement unless performing acrobatics. Agreed? And as Rivets points out, getting used to a rigid stick took almost no time - I soloed dozens and it took them about 10 or 20 seconds, heh heh. Just watch the Thunderbirds to appreciate how only a few ounces of pressure provides exremely precise formation flying. Yet that same stick can command 9 gees and a few hudred degrees per second of roll rate.
Lastly, for Rivets, et al...... The FBW systems, as a rule, move the control surfaces to achieve the body rates and gees and they may only move a degree or they may move to full deflection depending on dynamic pressure ( the "gains")
Gums sends...