Heheh. Don’t feel too bad. Brakes are expensive to replace also 
I wont say dim limitation, I will say sim bug.
The thrust efficiency values for reverse pitch are negative, which means the propeller will produce reverse thrust.
Why MSFS treats it backwards while in the air makes no sense and is news to me. I will report it to Asobo.
It’s really odd, and unexpected. I don’t even remember why I tried it, possibly just because I never had, and was curious. 
Fixed: SimWorks Studios Kodiak 100 one the best aircraft for MSFS 2020 both forwards and backwards
@Baracus250 Time for a new list! The best bi-directional aircraft in the sim. Put it next to the blacksharkAI glitch thread.
hahaha, I’m on it!
How long before someone makes a mod for the coming soon Double Ender to actually make it fly either way. The 337 Skymaster could do the same
I’m sure I have seen some aircraft that look kinda symmetrical in both axis but can’t recall what I’m thinking of at the moment
It would be interesting to know why the Caravan doesn’t do this however. I assume both are using Asobo turboprop code.
I assume that the Caravan uses Asobo’s propeller code, while ours uses the propeller performance tables from FSX. The latter were upgraded by Asobo to allow for much more fine control around the time of SU6, but this weird bug hadn’t been observed until you pointed it out.
Wasn’t me 
Not a light undertaking I’m sure, but I wonder whether it would be resolved by moving to the new propeller simulation (NPS). It seems non-trivial to implement though, but many planes are using it.
Funnily enough, the Asobo Caravan does use NPS, so that may explain it.
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/simworks-studios-kodiak-100-one-the-best-aircraft-for-msfs-2020/482321/2134?u=sonicviz
Kodiak sounds a bit like a Stuka, flying with the props reversed.
Maybe we should do a dive bombing comp with sacks of flour!
We used to throw stuffed jumpsuits out the door of the jump plane to hit the pit sometimes, so it’s kitted already.
Though I don’t think anybodies done a useable droppable object yet. Even the Porter’s trapdoor doohicky is really just for show.
I’ve created something of a franken-plane. I removed all the propeller configuration from the Kodiak, and copied in the NPS settings from the BS Caravan. Other than loss of airspeed, and other performance issues such as no need for massive amounts of right rudder, take-off was possible, and I levelled off at 6000ft. When engaging full reverse, loss of airspeed was observed, and then I entered a steep dive, but at a much arrested rate. This was closer to what I saw in the BS C208 Caravan, but an even more pronounced dive.
It certainly seems like those FSX propeller settings are the cause for it. The AP was not able to maintain level flight, and it did not accelerate when in reverse. This may be one of those FSX code not working properly with MSFS modern physics. Actually, I wonder how it behaves with the modern flight model disabled!?
Again, I don’t have all my gear set up, but it would have been interesting to fly all three tests without the AP to see what happens in level flight.
One of the problems of NPS is that it does not allow us to get correct thrust, torque and Np across the entire operating envelope of the engine. I.e. the Kodiak will idle at 1080rpm Np at ground idle, 1400-1440 at high idle and max out at 2200rpm. With correct torque values I was unable to get one of the two idles right.
A rather long discussion about it can be seen on the Asobo developer support forums that we use to report issues. Please avoid posting there as it will clutter things up for Asobo.
The first topic covers a lot of problems with the NPS, the second one is an indicative post of more problems with it: https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/9677/prop-modern-power-abosorb-formulas.html
https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/15368/modern-propmodel-breaks-taxing.html
Long story short, it is not complete enough to be usable by developers across all planes. It can work perfectly for some planes because it will happen to fit them. It will not work for others because it isn’t configurable enough and its existing bugs may make it inaccurate or just unusable.
Furthermore, we have a clear bias in favour of the FSX legacy table system because it provides very fine control across the entire operating range of the propeller, its results are predictable using formulas that are accepted by the industry and academia and lastly, we are in a position to know that this is indeed how propeller performance maps are done in the industry.
The glitch with reverse thrust that you discovered is extreme, but it seems to be a bug on an edge case of Asobo’s implementation. It would not make sense to spend time redoing the engine with a system that is knowingly problematic and lacking, which may also need to further adjustments to the flight model of the “glider” because of a bug caused while trying to fly backwards! 
For the heck of it, though, I will negate the propeller tables so that I have reverse thrust everywhere and see how the kaidoK flies.
I just tried it with the modern flight model disabled, and saw no change in behaviour. I belt, and braced it with the GUI setting, and setting the option in the flight model file to 0, rather than 1. I was thinking along the lines of FSX-like settings working better with the legacy flight model, but it appears unrelated.
On another note, does anyone else have that issue where you spawn in, and it unceremoniously drops you onto the tarmac? It’s like the plane always spawns a foot above the ground. It doesn’t seem to matter if you are on grass, dirt or paved it always does it. I think it also affects both tyre types as well.
I knew I heard that somewhere, before! Watched “The Malta Story” (1953) a couple of nights ago and it has several what appear to be real-life clips of the venerable Stuka doing its thing.
Didn’t recall this ever happening, but just re-tried it in both “cold and dark” and ready to fly modes.
No untoward droppages noted. Might be your set-up. BTW, I don’t fly in VR.
I just scanned all of my installed planes “engines.cfg” files to see if any other plane was using these legacy tables, and the only one I found was the MS Pilatus PC-6. It’s quite well documented, with each line commented with a brief explanation of what it does, and options. I wish more devs did this.
Oddly it has values for the PC6, and C208 which are commented out. I wonder if they used that as a starter or base, as it was available before the PC6.
It has this line.
prop_uselegacytables = 1 ; When used reverser is worse
Time for another test. The PC6 didn’t accelerate, and was actually really stable, but I ran out of elevator authority, and it just mushed there at 55kts without stalling in full reverse.
So it doesn’t appear to be the mere existence of these legacy tables, but their values? I was able to sit there at idle, slowing down slower than 55kts, then in to full reverse, and it sped up to 55, all while maintaining level flight in a slightly nose up attitude.
Copying over the Kodiak prop tables didn’t seem to change its behaviour much. Though I am curious as to why I didn’t see the better than cruise speeds in the PC6 when in full reverse. Which makes me think its more than just the prop values themselves. The PC6 definitely slowed down instead of speeding up.
From the looks of the comment above, MS/Asobo were aware of this back when the PC6 was being developed.
The PC-6 FM was done by Alex Metzger who did it as a contractor, not Asobo. Going from memory, the PC-6 doesn’t have entries for negative propeller pitch in its efficiency tables. The value after the first comma is 3 degrees IIRC.
I am using negative pitch to control reverse thrust and beta range, so there is a chance MSFS may disagree it inflight but play along on the ground. DEFINITELY worth investigating.
Yes, I’ve found since day 1 that all aircraft ‘settle’ when spawning in c&d With some it’s a more noticeable and closer to an unceremonious drop.
I would hazard a guess that it is down to a very small discrepancy between what the SIM is saying is the ground elevation data used for spawning in and the ground elevation rendered in the SIM. Never get it if starting on the runway though.
Not Kodiak specific.
Hmm. I’ve never noticed that in any other plane before. I’ll keep a close eye out for that. I’ve been flying the 414 a lot over the last week, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t do it.
I think I even get it a bit in the 737. Not much, just a slight movement and sound.