Just to maybe clarify something before it develops into a “it needs the stick pusher because otherwise it is unrecoverable” like the Cirrus controversy – all stalls were demonstrated throughout flight testing to be recoverable, though as mentioned high power high pitch stalls involve a significant departure, wing roll and altitude loss (800 to 800 feet).
However FAR 23 specifies certain stall behavior parameters to be met which are not in the mentioned flight regimes, hence the development of the stall protection envelope which is calculated based on speed, AoA, flap setting and engine torque.
The pusher can be overridden either by applying 50lb of force to the controls, or for the non-gym inclined pilots a considerably smaller amount of force to the disconnect button.
T28 wrote:
hence the development of the stall protection envelope which is calculated based on speed, AoA, flap setting and engine torque.The pusher can be overridden either by applying 50lb of force to the controls, or for the non-gym inclined pilots a considerably smaller amount of force to the disconnect button.
Sounds like an “MCAS” system that will fail at some point… IMO an aircraft should either have full “fly by wire”, or no half cooked gadgets whatsoever to fulfill some regulation required for flight envelope.
I think it is a bit exaggerated to say that it sounds like MCAS when this is one of the most popular SET types on the world. The system is very well proven and to my knowledge there has not been any accidents due to this feature.
I have only flown the NG but it is very obvious and well displayed when you are getting close to the stall(alarm+shaker) and there is plenty of time to recover before the pusher interacts.
The PC-12 is a great utility aircraft carrying heavy loads in and out of remarkably short strips.
A stick pusher isn’t anything like MCAS which drives the trim. Loads of bizjets have stick pushers.
Stick pusher = senstive stall horn and awake pilot, aircraft is stable on it’s way near the stall but the device avoids having pilots lured into thinking they have lot of elevator authority, so they will not stall or just slap them to do something
MCAS is different it allows the pilot to fly high angle of attack and high power regimes near the stall on a dynamically unstable aircraft by design using rapid adjustments of control surfaces & trim that goes beyond what humans can acheive for that aircraft to pass certification tests…
Any system will fail “at some point”. Even “fly by wire”. Pilatus’ pusher fails a lot less (and with far lesser consequences) than the tractor ignition powering GA aircraft, in spite of being remarkably more complex, yet I don’t see anybody making sanguine statements about magnetos….
Having said that, Pilatus was one step ahead of Boeing in installing two AoA vanes instead of just one…
@Ibra I think in your excitement you confused the Max with the F16. The MCAS was implemented to deal with non-linear control forces in certain flight regimes, but it is a mistake to say that the MAX is “aerodynamically unstable”.
A lot of planes have control force reversion in certain flight regimes, that doesn’t mean “aerodynamically unstable”.
Not as much as F16 or Eurofighters but it’s very close in one regime: the pilots can’t mamnually fly B737Max with flaps up and full power and high nose, or do you think they can do without MCAS?
It’s pure physics from huge engine weight, thrust vector and tiny aircraft airframe nothing to do with the software or pilot skills
The MAX will be back in the service with same fudge, you can’t ignore the demand for such aircraft airframe and engine combination, but just more crew training and education on how it works (trim cutout button somewhere 
) but MCAS is here to stay…
