I saw the big twin TPs backing out of their parking stands at Helsinki. Does it work, yes. Is it safe or good for the aircraft, no.
Not for this aircraft: …
One could call that manoeuver a “quick turnaround”. Ryanair would love it, right now they are still in the twenty-minute regime 
i have seen the Viggen at many airshows – a spectacular performer! And one of the loudest things built by humans, only beaten by the atomic bomb and one or two other noise generators.
If their reversers are designed for that, why not… But normal engines tend to recirculate hot exhaust gases and blown-up dirt during that kind of operation.
Used to be common practice in the US.
Why do TPs have it?
The overall goal is to enable an aircraft to operate from a runway as short as possible. on most pistons the landing roll with brakes only is shorter than the takeoff roll anyway so no need for reverse. Many high horsepower TP can take off with less runway than they can stop on with brakes only so having reverse or at least beta is desirable. Also static thrust at idle could be very hard on TP brakes without any beta when taxing.
Here is an interesting article on backing up a King Air: http://kingairacademy.com/can-i-backup-my-king-air/
Why would backing up be so much of a problem for the turboprop engine (ignoring for a moment concerns about seeing where you are going)? Why should the propeller be more likely to receive a nick from a stong sucked through the disk? Why would there be more debris getting into the engine intake?
I undestand why acking up a Jet could be problematic. The exhaust stream and all the debris it might kick up originates from behind the engine and is directed forward beyond the intake, which moght suck it in. the DC9 has the engine quite high and the intake is protected by the wing, an under-wing engne would be more problematic.
But a Turboprop?
Not sure why you would need one for the Super Cub, but you can get a reversible prop from MT for the PA18.
Here is another impressive use of a reversible prop. What make of prop is it?
Sebastian_G wrote:
The overall goal is to enable an aircraft to operate from a runway as short as possible. on most pistons the landing roll with brakes only is shorter than the takeoff roll anyway so no need for reverse. Many high horsepower TP can take off with less runway than they can stop on with brakes only so having reverse or at least beta is desirable.
This is an interesting insight that I had not really thought about in terms of aircraft design/capability before.
When I first learned to fly and was spreading my wings thereafter, there was obviously a lot of chat about runway requirements at the various destinations one might visit. It wasn’t mentioned much by instructors or other pilots, but became obvious to me very quickly that in an SEP the major issue is take-off performance. One can land and stop on many very short strips that one could never safely depart from.
I guess if you quizzed me on the specifics I would have known that larger and more powerful aircraft tended to be constrained by their landing distance requirements, but I wouldn’t have appreciated that it fed through into design for things like reverse thrust.
Sebastian_G wrote:
The overall goal is to enable an aircraft to operate from a runway as short as possible. on most pistons the landing roll with brakes only is shorter than the takeoff roll anyway so no need for reverse.
That’s true for spamcans but not for slick composite aircraft like the DA40.
Graham wrote:
One can land and stop on many very short strips that one could never safely depart from
Get a Super Cub. In general if you can get in to a strip you can get out
