The figures of the original poster on this do not match my experience. I owned a Cherokee 140 for 12 years before building my RV6 and flying it for 12 years before building the RV12. I now have about a year with the RV12.
I believe it is more expensive to build and fly an RV12 than a typical Cherokee. The RV12 is so much a nicer airplane that there is no way I want to fly a typical Cherokee instead of the RV12. But I do not see THE RV12 as less expensive.
I look at airplane ownership cost as three elements: time, operating, depreciation.
Time based costs are mainly hangar, insurance and the annual inspection. Hangar is the same either way. I insure only for liability. But if I carried hull insurance I expect those costs would 50% to 100% higher for the RV12 over a typical Cherokee, because the RV12 is a new plane and much more valuable than the Cherokee. My annual costs with the Cherokee 140 were nothing like the original poster's experience. I handled the Cherokee annual inspections by working with the inspector. I did most of the grunt work. My Cherokee annuals were slightly higher than I have had with the RV6 - some money for the inspector's time and special Cherokee parts were more expensive than RV parts. But most of the parts were the same for both (engine parts, tires and brakes, etc.). I guess the RV12 annuals will be a little less than the RV6. Overall, I would expect the higher insurance costs to more than offset the annual inspection savings. That is, if you get yourself involved in the annual inspection on the Cherokee.
Operating costs (mainly fuel, oil and overhaul reserve) favor the RV12. I would figure the same gas in either (mostly car gas but some av gas when car gas unavailable). My Cherokee used perhaps half again as much fuel as the RV12 (looking at MPG at comparable cruise speeds). So the RV12 fuel cost advantage for 100 hours is maybe $1,000 - $1,200. Overhaul is probably twice as much for the Cherokee so another $400 or so per year saved with the RV 12. Of course these savings are less if you fly less than 100 hours per year, which many of us do.
I would expect depreciation to be much higher for the RV12 versus the typical Cherokee. First, with the RV12 you have 150% to 200% as much invested so there is more to depreciate. If maintained, the old Cherokees have basically depreciated out. I wound up with no depreciation (in constant dollars) but I did spend some money on avionics replacements and upgrades over the 12 years. It worked out to less than $500 per year. I would expect depreciation on a new RV12 of at least 5% per year - minimum. I see a lot of them for sale at little more than the cost to build new (remember to include shipping, sales taxes, paint, extras). I think the higher depreciation more than offsets the savings in operating costs.
In summary, from my seat in the ballpark it costs more to own and fly the RV12 than a typical older Cherokee 140 like I had. I think it is well worth it. But I do not think people should go into a new RV12 thinking they are going to save a lot of money versus an older Cherokee or Cessna.
I expect you can see some RV12 savings if you compare an RV12 with a late model Archer for which you pay for "turn-key, clean hands" maintenance. But I do not think that is what most dollar sensitive folks are about.
Just one opinion.
Best I do not run those numbers. And we do 200 hours a year.
