Can someone explain why turboprops are less effective in terms of thrust than turbofans? But at the same time, why turboprops burn less fuel? For example, the Bombardier Q400/De Havilland Dash 8 has a fuel burn of 2.79L/seat/100km, whilst the 737 MAX 8 with the same number of engines burns 2.93L/seat/100km, but the Bombardier has a max. cruising speed of 360 knots and the Boeing plane can go up to 526-527 knots, even though it's heavier.
To generate a given thrust, a turbofan accelerates less air but faster than a turboprop. This means that turbofans can fly faster. However thermodynamically it is more efficient to accelerate a greater mass of air slower, so turboprops are more efficient and that translates into lower fuel burn.
It’s all dependent upon what operating speeds your aircraft will be in. Propellers can move a great volume of air at slow speeds but accelerate the gas to a lower exit speed than does a turbojet or a turbofan. This is the principal reason that a helicopter is the most efficient means of VTOL flight out there for a heavier than air aircraft. But as speeds increase, the the specific impulse drops and the propeller efficiency drops off with it. At around 400-500 mph, the specific impulse of a high bypass turbofan becomes superior to the turboprop, as, while it moves less air than a turboprop, it can accelerate the smaller air mass to a much higher exit velocity. This trend continues through low bypass turbofan engines, turbojets and then ramjets.
And as pointed out turboprops have a beta and reverse pitch range which can produce reverse thrust.
Turboprops are less fast because of the mechanical constrainsts at the blade tips,efficiency and noise near the speed of sound.
For reverse thrust:yes