As to my suggestion, Phil has written a very detailled reply, as many of you are Alpha customers, I have copied here....
There are several problems associated with this idea - first one is that it would double the size of every shop entry where there are versions for two sims, that means two download folders and associated files and passwords, two sets of screenshots, two shop entries, two news page entries, two database entries plus the enevitable customer support hassles when people will buy the wrong one for their sim and berate us for selling them faulty goods. Clearly this is a non-starter from a site management point of view.
Second problem is that history has taught us that there is a period when two sim versions overlap and die-hards will criticise the new one and say it's unnecessary because the old one is still so good. This period does not last and most eventually move over to the new sim. I remember when FS9 came out some people were vehement they would not waste their hard-earned money on upgrading their PCs to run this 'monster' when their FS2002 was 'perfectly adequate'. We know what happened there, how many here still think FS02 is the best thing ever ? Believe me, FS9's days are numbered, FSX is where we are heading - on the right equipment it towers over FS9 and you have not even seen the start of what skilled developers can do in that sim, we are only just beginning to explore the extensive capabilities it has. We can make models with higher poly counts in FSX, we are constantly hamstrung by the poly count limit in FS9 - the new Tornado for example has a complete rear cockpit, but only in FSX. Support for FS9 is currently strong, but it will eventually fade and the days of the FSX-only models are getting nearer. To say you will 'be running FS9 for years ahead' may be true for your good self, but I think it is not a common intent, the marketplace in just one year's time for FS9 models will be small (possibly unviable) - in two years it will be almost non-existent and supported only by freeware (try selling FS02 models now). So basically, any dual-pricing structure would be hard to implement and would only be short lived anyway, doesn't seem to make business sense from a time investment point of view.
The third reason is a misconception that price rises are because there is an FSX model included - that's only a part of the reason. Models are more complex, texture sets are more complex with multiple layers needed to make them and more often now there are multiple schemes in a package, and don't forget the panel and gauge work, now more detailed. There was a time when a soundset was a rare addition - now these are always included and are almost always custom-made ($$$) for that particular model. Many models are not built in-house now, the division of labour on larger projects makes sense, although buying in the base models for FS conversion by ourselves is no cheap option, some models cost us many thousands of Dollars before we even get them working in the sims, that can take months (C-17?). So FS9 or FSX, the costs to make the products are higher than ever and unless we cover costs, we fail and shut up shop, that's the bottom line.
The last reason is that payware models, well ours at least, have always been highly underpriced. If you were really serious about accounting and added up every hour every man worked, paid overtime for working late and at weekends, double-time on Sundays and holidays, then looked at the amount we would expect to sell, the price would be in the hundreds of dollars a model - we would not sell even one. I don't know how other vendors function or what their sales are like, but I know that we should, from an accountant's point of view, not really be trading at all. When you think you are paying too much, you are actually paying too little ! You are getting a 'labour of love', something which should never have been made, it's economically unrealistic. It's only because of the totality of sales across the product range that a seemingly acceptable return is made, but it's illusion - the amount taken as 'profit' divided by the man hours will never, ever add up, not for any of us.
It comes back to what I've said before, the hobby is getting better, more exciting and much more realistic, but it comes at a cost and I suspect some will choose not to keep up and will find other things to do, or rely on freeware. If enough do that then the whole thing will no longer be viable for us and we will disappear. I hope that won't happen and I hope that most of you will stay the course, we have many new and exciting products coming, some are still just ideas and concepts, but we can't make them if people are going to stick doggedly to older software or choose not to part with what is a small sum, all things considered, in order to make these dreams a reality.
It looks (for me at least) the days of buying low cost payware on a regular basis have come to an end. Thanks guys, it was a pleasure to have witnessed the golden period of affordable Alphasim payware (about 6 years to my knowledge at least), but I do fully understand the economics and accept that if others will pay that amount you have a duty to yourselves to charge it....and for paying for Dans air fare
Learning that they should be there only serves to fill me with more dismay :-( 
Alphasim-Shane responed saying that the props on the 111 don't contra rotate as they do on American aircraft so try a bit of rudder trim :o For a comparison, I dug out 2 recent releases, the Hudson and Hampden and all 3 have props modelled to run anti clockwise (when viewed from the front). Thing is.. neither the Hampden or Hudson fly in circles. I have no P-Torque effects on (realism settings are 'Easy') so I wouldn't expect to see the 111 doing it's own thing. There is going to be a patch released today some time to correct issues with starting from cold in FSX (FSX doesn't hang on to the starters long enough to get the engines to fire.. quite a common problem and an FSX issue) but this doesn't effect me. :-(