It's because they aren't part of China.

Hong Kong is China now (kind of), Macau isn't though.

I'm pretty sure both Macau and Hong Kong are special administrative regions of China.

Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 NG - Short haul routes

Boeing 737 Max 7 - Short/medium haul routes

Boeing 737 Max 8 - Higher demand short/medium haul routes

Boeing 737 Max 9 - Medium haul international routes

Boeing 787-9 - Long haul international routes

Boeing 777-9X - Busy long haul international routes

For long haul aircraft, because there are less total cycles being put onto the airframe, upwards of 16 hours should be fine. I keep shorthaul anywhere between 9 and 12 hours daily because there are more cycles being put onto the airframe. 

Thank you! I'll keep that in mind.

Is 16 hours fairly realistic?

So I was wondering what characteristics a "realistic" airline has. I've run a few spamlines, but I'm interested in trying out a realistic airline for a change.

1, I would definitely recommend FSX over FS9. However, you should consider getting either Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d (which is essentially FSX with better graphics and bug fixes), FSX: Steam Edition (which is a bug-fixed version of boxed FSX) or X-Plane 10 (which I'd recommend least out of all of them if you're going for a truly immersive, in depth experience).

2, 4GB of ram would definitely be enough to run any sim on fairly low settings.

3, The base product is fairly realistic; if you're willing to spend some money to get a good payware addon (A2A and PMDG produce AMAZING products) it can be unbelievably realistic. 

4, For me, at least, it's very fun.

5, In FSX you can get a large number of freeware and payware planes.

6, No idea.

7, No idea.

8, Boxed FSX no longer has multiplayer, but FSX: Steam Edition has multiplayer.

9, I think there are around 25 or 30 thousand. I might be totally wrong though.

10, The more addons you get, the more indepth it can be. For example, it can take weeks or even months to master flying a PMDG aircraft based on your previous level of knowledge.

11, That's your choice.

The only planes to make anything out there are the Il-18 and Cl-44 from experience. No routes with higher demand than 10 daily.

That's awful!

Have you even seen Bangui or Niamey?

Never dared to 

What's the demand like?

How about Palau? It only has one airport, and passenger demand to major airports nearby (Hong Kong, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, etc) seems to be in the mid thirties. Come to think of it, Nauru must be even harder.

Especially since they don't have an airport

Precisely 

I imagine Andorra would be quite difficult to operate out of 

I really like the A2A C172. It simulates every step of preflight inspections and can catch you by surprise if you fail to do a thorough inspection (occasional water in the fuel, control failures, ...). It also simulates regular (and irregular) maintenance like oil and filter changes, engine compression tests, etc. Other realism things include spark plugs getting fouled if you fail to lean during taxi (make sure you check your magnetos during the runup!), draining the battery after cranking the engine too much (either no fuel or flooded), etc. Oh and the audio is amazing - the switches, fuel boost pump, and engine noises sound exactly like the real thing.

 

As LockheedTristar mentioned, prop strikes are simulated as well

 

Awesome! Thanks, Yuxi. It seems like all of A2A's aircraft are really amazing. From my research, it sounds like the 172 or Cherokee might be better starter aircraft since the 182 is a little more complex (constant speed propeller, cowl flaps, etc). Does anyone know anything about A2A's Cherokee?

For the twin engine market, I would have to say the Alabeo Cessna 404 is my top choice. The 404 is a larger version of the 402. Featuring different engines, and a little different design. But it's a classic airplane that was used for private, air taxi, air cargo, and airline operations. Alabeo did a great job modeling it, and they also just released a new service pack for it. It has very few minor issues. I have about 20 hours flying the Alabeo 404. The Aersoft Twin Otter is another great add-on! It flies well, it's slower than I thought it would be for having two PT6s. But it's held at Aerosoft's quality, it has fanastic modeling and some cool features aswell! Carenado also has a wonderful Beechcraft King Air 90, and 200. The 200 is my personal favorite, I just love the 200. It is very well modeled and is easy on frames. MilViz is coming out with a King Air 350i featuring a glass cockpit and all the bells and whistles. It's still in Beta, but from my knowledge you can purchase it know, and recieve updates as it is fixed. Then Flight1 has a King Air 200 that features a glass cockpit, but I know nothing about it. Also, have heard and seen good reviews on about the RealAir Beechraft Duke, however, I've never owned or flown it.

 

For single engine, their are plenty of wonderful aircraft! A2A with Accusim is a wonderful add-on. Like LockheedTristar said the maintenance thing is great! It's also very well modeled. Carenado and Alabeo also feature a great line-up, I love my Carenado 206, you can upgrade it to glass. But for single engines I would recommend A2A if they have made it.

 

What I always do when looking into an add-on, is I look on youtube and find any kind of review of the aircraft. That way I know how it is hurting frames, or what common issues are there, things like that!

Awesome - thank you!

I was looking at Carenado's C404 because it's such a cool airplane. Aerosoft's Twin Otter is definitely a good aircraft as well, but I think it's a little too large for my criteria presently. I hope I can get it in the future, though. I personally was wondering which of Carenado's king airs was better, so you helped clear up a lot. I haven't heard of the MilViz and Flight1 planes, but I'm sure they're excellent as well. I've also heard a lot of good stuff about the RealAir Duke - is there anyone reading this thread who owns it and could spare a word or two about?

As for single engines, I'm looking only at A2A's planes (c172, c182, and cherokee) for now, since they seem to be widely regarded as the best.

Not Carenado

Carendao is pure ,pure eyecandy. You should look at the A2A products (especially the c182). Way more realistic and functioning then the carenado aircraft.

Thank you!

Is the c182 superior to their c172?

Bombardier Dash 8 Q400

Such a nice plane

Hello all,

I'm an FSX user, and recently I've been looking for a good payware GA or light transport aircraft. Right now, I'm more interested in twins than single engine aircraft because they're usually faster, can fly farther, are better at instrument flight, and are generally more complex aircraft, but I'm open to both. Are there any particular aircraft you would recommend? I've looked through the Carenado site already, but there are simply too many aircraft for me to decide definitively on one, so input (positive or negative) on a particular Carenado product would be extra helpful. Thank you all in advance.

Oh - my computer also has 8 GB of ram and a processor speed of 2.4 GHz.

Is the fuel flow for the Beechcraft Bonanza correct? AE indicates a fuel flow of 266 PPH (At least I assume it's in PPH), but other sources suggest that the actual fuel flow is lower. Using data from the links shown below and assuming each gallon of fuel weighs 6.79 pounds, I calculated an average fuel flow of 107.51 PPH. Am I missing something? Did I do something wrong? Or is AE's number incorrect? If so, could the fuel flow be corrected? Thanks!

http://www.planeandp...ml#.VXPPKM9Viko

http://www.aopa.org/...3A-Bonanza.aspx

http://www.planeandp...ml#.VXPPKs9Viko

Thank you all for your input - I agree that it makes it really difficult to make your airline unique.

What's the purpose of having a set list of starting aircraft? Couldn't AE start you off in a new world with a certain amount of money but no other assets, and then you choose your own aircraft from there? I just feel like the few starting options are sort of limiting.

Yeah I won S4 last time and I didn't get any awards.

Thank you to everyone!

Before you click lease your gate the price will be slightly to the left of that button..

Ie... boston will say $280,000 and Martha's Vineyard would say $15,000

I was more wondering how exactly they (the people at AE) come up with those lease costs. Do the they find the information on the web? Do they calculate it themselves?

Where exactly do you get the gate lease costs at airports? This is a weird question, but I was curious. 

Check your aircraft details page, not just the daily profit; the capital cost of the aircraft, maintenance costs, depreciation/lease payments etc. will most likely render the aircraft unprofitable. (Incidentally, the same goes for Concorde.)

I make a net profit of $235,674 monthly, according to the aircraft details page.

This may be terrible advice, but I've been able to make a profit with Cessna 208s. For example, in R5, I fly 10 times weekly between Walla Walla and Boise, a route with a passenger demand of 8Y. I make around $1,100 a day on that route.