The air ministry had specifications, criticized and reviewed plans submitted to them and made decisions on what plans they would accept and what they wouldn't, based presumably on the pitch for the new design. That's more than a verbal commitment to build a good plane.
Wait, I don't understand. Do you mean that having things like CAD, 3D simulations, fast computers and high-volume mechanized production make it slower to produce an airplane than using drawing boards, pencils, slide rules, prototype testing etc?
I agree that right now that isn't how planes are made. But it is how some planes have been made - indeed, how the plane was made - so we know that it is possible to make planes that way. I'm not really asking is not how planes are currently made - that's easy to find out. But with serious...
What are the factors preventing that from happening? And why would it take longer to produce a 6th generation fighter than it did to actually invent the aeroplane?
I take your point, but what about planes like, say, the Hurricane? It first flew in 1935, same as the ME-109:
(emphasis mine)
Isn't this an example of creating a revolutionary new plane design within the space of a year?
The ME-109 was introduced in the late 1930s - the first flight was in '35 and the introduction in '37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109" ). So, if you're serious about making this comparison and using the timeframe of 20 years (2010-2030), shouldn't we be looking at the state of...
Surely that's not a given? When people are enthusiastic and have gumption, they can produce very quickly. This happened with the P-51 Mustang, for instance:
(emphasis mine, http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html" )
--Fi