feed (they *typically* use 50% more fuel per hp delivered than a reciprocating engine)
Once again, it depends on what engines you're comparing. A PT-6A which is what a lot of GA pilots think of when you say "turboprop" is a pretty inefficient engine. The difference is probably closer to 15-30% more instead of 50% unless you're going for the difference between a very low end recip and a poor quality turboprop. I based this guess off of the Honeywell/Garrett TPE-331-10AV that I am planning on using for my aircraft is rated at sea level at 0.53 lbs/hp/hr (for 940 shaft hp) as opposed to the various reciprocating engines I could have fallen back upon.

Then again, the fuel consumption kind of balances out once you factor in that you're generally going considerably faster which means you spend less time burning fuel than you would in recip powered aircraft.

The other two benefits of turboprops is that you don't get exposed to lead and there's a reduced risk of fire associated with either fueling or being in a crash involving an aircraft using Jet-A than with a similar aircraft utilizing 100LL or mogas. There's a reason why the Navy uses kerosene based fuels on its aircraft carriers.