Originally Posted by
ARealTimTuffy
According to the testimony yesterday and today, as well as other information, it is both. Linear gradient stick force and provide pilots consistent feel between NG and MAX models.
Since the NG was linearization compliant, it is a default that the MAX would handle the same since it met the same requirement. MCAS was intended to not expose a new behavior to pilots to avoid new training, What I know is that it could not be certified to fly without MCAS**, but it could be certified if the feel was different, just as a new type. I'd say the higher control on the ability to sell the plane is that it is basically certifiable. The ability to sell this plane model is predicated on it being certifiable; it is just more marketable if it's not a new type. Since cert >> marketable, and since linearization does both, then linearization is the overriding factor and handling is a fallout.
If the FAA had grandfathered non-linear response and MCAS was created to enforce that non-linear response, then that would be different.
I just don't expect that the stick-force gradient is identical in all corners of the MAX envelope to the NG; but I do expect that it is sufficiently linear to meet the CFR.
**Not MCAS specifically, but Boeing had to deal with the lift-curve behavior somehow so some change was going to be required and MCAS could produce that change.