Why reversing props on turboprops but not on pistons?

Also not many SEPs have fully feathering props…. The Mooney Missile and Rocket conversions being exceptions….

In general they aren’t needed on Pistons unless they need to manoeuvre in the water. Why would you want one?

To reduce landing distance but they are typically aircraft that have longer landing distances anyway. I never used more than Beta as the damage that can be caused to props is not worth it. Brakes are cheaper than propellers.

I watched an Extra 500 (?? Turboprop) park at LFEY by reversing to back up towards the edge of the Tarmac. Very impressive.

I usually see ATR at LYBE using reverse instead of pushback.

At EBZW, the reverse prop is also useful for parking the PC6 and the others on the small apron.

I watched an Extra 500 (?? Turboprop) park at LFEY by reversing to back up towards the edge of the Tarmac. Very impressive.

In every flight manual of every aircraft with reversers that I have flown (turboprop and jet) taxiing backwards using reverse thrust was strictly verboten. For various reasons each of which is valid on it’s own account.

And one of the reasons for not having reversing props on piston aircraft is that the major part of these use air-cooled engines which won’t survive long without cooling air supplied by the propeller.

what_next wrote:

In every flight manual of every aircraft with reversers that I have flown (turboprop and jet) taxiing backwards using reverse thrust was strictly verboten.