TUIfly Belgium MAX delivery flight returns to Boeing Field after electrical stabiliser trim failure

The CG is not in the "wrong" location. You frankly do NOT know what you are talking about. The aircraft has a forward and stable CG. The "computers" do very little, unlike an Airbus!

The MANEUVERING characteristic augmentation system, MCAS, which was the main culprit in the previous accidents, is exactly what it says, it is a maneuvering augmenting system, it corrects a flight control loading issue while maneuvering in extreme (Non-Normal) attitudes, due to different aerodynamic characteristics caused by the larger engine nacelle and its forward and higher position. This causes an aerodynamic lift increase, at the engines, which acted like a canard. This caused a nearly imperceptible decrease in the aft stick loading. FAA aircraft certifications prohibited this decrease, so MCAS simply trimmed nose down to keep that control loading from decreasing. It was never a CG issue. The MAX engine location in fact moved the CG forward to a more stabilizing position.

It is a terrific aircraft to fly, very predictable, smooth, very efficient and much quieter.

In your comment, you mention "fixes" and quite simply, "fixes" are put in place to resolve "problems". Yes, training could have contributed to the crashes but the fact of the matter is that the Max8 is an aircraft that should/would never have been built. If Boeing execs and the board did not have their heads up their ()*() looking for their wallets decades ago and being 100% focused on short-term profitability, they should have applied some cycles to corporate and product sustainability. And IMHO, that is why they would not have ended up being in react mode to other manufacturers in that size airframe market.

Anyway my 2 cents.

It’s just a re-engined ‘37. Sure, it has nose up tendencies when under full thrust in manual flight, but the FAA required a same “flight control feel” in order for Boeing to continue the type certificate rating. That’s what MCAS achieved. Although it should have been mentioned in the AFM, and redundancy should have been built in, my understanding is that Boeing decided that any MCAS malfunction would, should or could be solved by either the QRH, Non-Normal or Memory items. The quickest being a Memory Item trim issue remedied by two little switches on the centre pedestal and sufficient airmanship required to manually fly the aircraft and return for landing.