Originally Posted by
jimtx
There is a lot I don't know about the aero of the MAX but I don't think the original MCAS was put there for "unacceptable" stick force. It was put there for non linear stick force which would be unacceptable by the certification requirements. If you showed me how it responded in that flight regime I might say it was acceptable and of no consequence. Kinda like the T-38 I used to fly. Be careful around .9 Mach, it's more sensitive. I envision two cases where the MAX's stick force non linearity might come into play. It might make a steep turn easier if you fly the attitude you want to put the performance where you want. It also might be a problem in a clean off autopilot windshear escape. Would have to see that in the airplane or simulator.
737: The MAX Mess | bit-player
The high-AoA instability of the MAX appears to be a property of the aerodynamic form of the entire aircraft, and so a direct way to suppress it would be to alter that form. For example, enlarging the tail surface might restore static stability. But such airframe modifications would have delayed the delivery of the airplane, especially if the need for them was discovered only after the first prototypes were already flying. Structural changes might also jeopardize inclusion of the new model under the old type certificate.
There were ways to fix the issue without MCAS. But they would have not allowed Boeing to use the existing B737NG Type certificate, meaning increased costs for CCQ training, new simulators instead of using NG simulators, ground school eyt
In the US, 737 pilots have just B737 on their licence. In the rest of the world, they have it like this:
B73A Boeing 737 Series 100 / 200 2T 2
B73B Boeing 737 Series 300 / 400 / 500 2T 2
B73C Boeing 737 Series 600 / 700 / 800 (NG Series) and -8 (MAX Series)
Using an aerodynamic fix for the problems related to the MAX would have likely turned the MAX into the B73D, which is not what Boeing had promised to its large Boeing 737NG customers like SouthWest..........