Joe:
True on the Operational standard to land in a crab in the T-38, but the rationale: “the wings are too short; it raises your stall speed!” was bunk. So was the standard to land on the upwind side of the runway (which would make you move towards the near upwind edge of the runway upon touchdown).
Been five years since I flew it, but I think the crosswind limit was 25 kts; maybe 30. I landed in some winds pushing those limits, and used a combination wing-low/slight crab.
I think the real reason for both directives was 1. Guys overcontrolled the rudder, (so the Air Force said “crab”) and 2. They wouldn’t crab enough, so if aiming upwind...they’d drift and end up on the downwind side. “Better aim upwind...”
Guys wouldn’t apply crosswind controls during T&Gs either on huge crosswind days, so the downwind tires would get trashed. (I taught my students otherwise; crewchiefs were always amused my tires were worn evenly
).
Anyway, the Alice could have crosswind gear....but that will add more weight to a weight-critical design. And even if landing in a crab is their stated solution, turbulence and gusting winds can cause undesired banks in the flare. ie, prop strikes.
There was a post about the weight of the batteries, aircraft Max Gross, and useful load. The batteries were over half the weight of the plane. I’d guess they are in the wings, which is why the motors were tip-mounted...for weight distribution and bending-moment. I’m not sure if these batteries are the type that can spontaneously combust like Lithium, but a battery fire in a thin wing does not bode well for structural integrity.
Is it sleek, futuristic, and cool-looking? Yes. Does it have socio-political appeal for the climate-change crowd? Yes. Did they make aerodynamic compromises to achieve strength, weight, and electrical objectives? I would guess yes.