You understand incorrectly. The 737 MAX would have no trouble being certified as a new type without MCAS. Boeing did not forget how to design planes.
In reality, the force curves always deviate from the ideal, save in fly-by-wire designs. There are two different issues at play:
The first is a force curve that deviates so much that it becomes unintuitive or unmanageable to fly. This would not be acceptable, but I have not seen someone claim the 737 MAX would be characterized this way.
The second is whether the force curves of the older 737s matched the MAX closely enough. These pilots are expecting a certain behavior, and under single certification, could be going back and forth between these models often. Even small differences in handling between these could be jarring and lead to bad stick inputs.
This is a much more demanding requirement because of the context; in the first case, a pilot is making one transition to a new aircraft that they expect will be different from what they flew before. In the second, they are switching between aircraft often, perhaps after long stretches of becoming accustomed to one model or the other. They must then constantly be aware of these differences and continually adjust for them, a situation ripe for error.
My understanding is that the 737Max flies kinda like a 757 without MCAS. It's not a big deal.
It is hard to find reliable sources on this, I must say.
I base my conclusion for example on these excerpts from [1]:
> MCAS would trigger in narrow circumstances. It was designed “to address potentially unacceptable nose-up pitching moment at high angles of attack at high airspeeds,” Boeing told the FAA in a proprietary System Safety Assessment
(This doesn't specify whether it would be unacceptable for certification, or for certification under the same type certificate.)
> Engineers determined that on the MAX, the force the pilots feel in the control column as they execute this maneuver would not smoothly and continuously increase. Pilots who pull back forcefully on the column — sometimes called the stick — might suddenly feel a slackening of resistance. An FAA rule requires that the plane handle with smoothly changing stick forces.
(This seems to indicate that it would be unacceptable under the general FAA rule.)
[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the...
From my understanding, the MCAS system was built to offset these problematic default states that come with using an old body not compatible with the upgrades made. I also heard the weight of these new engines caused wings to develop stress cracks.
Not sure how it could be considered safe without a better designed MCAS system and addressing the other issues.
> It simply handles differently than pre-MAX 737s in certain scenarios
It handles differently than previous 737s due to airframe changes (namely engine position). MCAS was meant to "correct" this for the purpose of skipping re-certification. The airframe isn't fundamentally flawed, the process of certifying it this round was flawed. Which caused Boeing engineers to implement a flawed MCAS system.
See for example here:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73132/did-boein...
(I agree, FWIW, that the plane would by flyable, easily in nearly all flight regimes, and carefully in some flight regimes, without MCAS. But that is not the issue at hand.)
Here is one example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/boeing-prop...
My understanding of that issue: The 737 is wired in such a way that was considered fine when it was designed. In 1998 an MC-11 crashed which resulted in revised design standards that would render the 737's wiring invalid, except the 737 was already a proven design by this point and consequently has been allowed to continue flying the way it is. The 737 MAX continues to use this wiring configuration, which was initially considered fine because the the 737 MAX "is a 737", a proven legacy design.
> Boeing did not forget how to design planes.
I certainly did not and would not suggest otherwise. It's possible I'm mistaken about the above, I'm certainly not an expert on FAA matters, but I earnestly don't think I'm wrong. If you still think I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a substantive correction.