Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "The Questionable Engineering of the 737 Max" video.

As far as I know, MCAS wasn't needed because engine cowling were higher. It was needed because the engines needed to be moved forward which caused engine power to forcefully push the nose of the plane upwards whenever the engine power was increased. Similarly, the nose of the plane would drop rapidly in case of engine failure or rapid throttle movement.
56
@stringpicker5468 Boeing couldn't use 2 sensors because FAA considers any redundant system as critical and you cannot use the same type certification with additional critical systems. That was the incentive for Boeing to use only one sensor. Boeing offered second sensor as an option but that couldn't be used as automatic fallback either or FAA could have considered that system as redundant, too. I think it was marketed as reduced downtime in case of sensor failure (because you could fly the next flight with another sensor if one failed).
2
@roowut Try watching video titled "Boeing 737 Stall Escape manoeuvre, why MAX needs MCAS!!" by Mentour Pilot (an actual Boeing pilot that trains new pilots) around 16 minutes mark for a better explanation.
2
@ReflectedMiles So, are you arguing on ad hominem or his actual merits?
1
@ReflectedMiles I agree with lots of what you said here. To me, it appears that he is a lot more interested in psychological side and mechanical details of aviation than most pilots. I'd guess he has a better understanding of minute details of many major incidents than even more experienced (in type rating count or flying hours) which would definitely given him an edge in situation where you would need to quickly understand what's happening in case of malfunction. That said, he seems to make mistakes, too, so you shouldn't take everything he says as gospel either.
1