Yes, I understand that for gameplay purposes we can't (and shouldn't) be focusing on complete realism. What I meant is comparative realism.
For example, if guns have different ranges altogether than in real life, it's completely acceptable. Assault rifles generally have effective ranges of 200-300 meters, and one tile in the game doesn't seem to be larger than 1 meter, but it would be silly for pistols to almost always hit up to 30 tiles and rifles to almost always hit up to 200 tiles, as maps aren't that large, and if they were, gameplay would be too slow. We understand that it's an abstraction for gameplay purposes. Yet if pistols and submachineguns had the exact same range and accuracy as sniper rifles, that would break immersion, as sniper rifles are specifically designed to have much bigger ranges, and they have disadvantages in other areas because they had do sacrifice speed, weight, etc. for that added range. This is what I mean with arguing that an aircraft which was specifically designed to have longer ranges than helicopters, should have at least somewhat longer range than helicopters.
Speaking of logistics, I understand that cars for example are not meant to be driven from the base to the mission, yet they still occupy hangar space, which is fine both because of engine limitations and balance reasons. (although it would be fine if cars took up much less hangar space, but that's a different story). And if road vehicles are meant to be leased on-site, the fact that vans are so much slower is also a bit unrealistic, because their speed would only be a factor for the last small portion of the trip, yet this is still an acceptable game-play element, as vans are comparatively slower than sport cars.