When comparing military equipment, little attention is paid to cost, at least in the popular resources (obviously, military establishments pay close attention to how much they are paying!)
E.g., there are many resources discussing Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, i.e., Spitfire vs Messerschmitt 109, but the production cost is ignored. Specifically, the consensus seems to be that they were evenly matched in battle most of the time. However, given that it took 15,000 man-hours to build a Spitfire 1A and 9,000 to build a Bf 109E, it seems that BF109 was a vastly better plane: Germany should have been able to field 5 bf109's for every 3 Spits.
Note that the reliability of the man-hour numbers above is unclear, which leads me to my question: what were the costs of various military tools? (from rifles to carriers)
This is, of course, too broad, so I will limit the question to fighter aircraft of WW2.
Please note that I am not talking about monetary cost (e.g., £9,500 for a Spit vs RM42,900 for a bf109 - how do you compare currencies in the absence of trade?) - they are very hard to trust in war economies (prices are often determined by government fiat, not market) of different countries (but please feel free to prove me wrong). I am interested in man-hours and other material costs.