Quotes

We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft, but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.

Of course, the outcome of the war would not have been changed. The war was lost perhaps, when it was started. At least it was lost in the winter of '42, in Russia.

The throttles could only move very, very slowly, always watching the temperature, always watching. And even in throttling back, you could bust it, even being very careful.

Many pilots of the time were the opinion that a fighter pilot in a closed cockpit was an impossible thing, because you should smell the enemy. You could smell them because of the oil they were burning.

According to Goering and the Luftwaffe High Command, they were supposed to be the fighter elite.

Nine g's is good, if the pilot can stand it. We couldn't stand it. Not in the airplanes of World War II.

And most of these pilots were lost during the first five flights.

I had to inspect all fighter units in Russia, Africa, Sicily, France, and Norway. I had to be everywhere.

I could not claim them because I was not supposed to be flying in combat.

I would like to mention that I have flown the 262 first in May '43. At this time, the aircraft was completely secret. I first knew of the existence of this aircraft only early in '42 - even in my position. This aircraft didn't have any priority in design or production.

I made a written report which is still today in existence. I have a photocopy of it, and I am saying that in production this aircraft could perhaps substitute for three propeller- driven aircraft of the best existing type. This was my impression.

This would only come if you have a revolutionary change in technology like the jet brought about.

Architecture arouses sentiments in man. The architect's task therefore, is to make those sentiments more precise.

Be truthful, nature only sides with truth.

The house has to please everyone, contrary to the work of art which does not. The work is a private matter for the artist. The house is not.

The work of art is brought into the world without there being a need for it. The house satisfies a requirement. The work of art is responsible to none; the house is responsible to everyone. The work of art wants to draw people out of their state of comfort.

The house has to serve comfort. The work of art is revolutionary; the house is conservative.

Changes in the traditional way of building are only permitted if they are an improvement. Otherwise stay with what is traditional, for truth, even if it be hundreds of years old has a stronger inner bond with us than the lie that walks by our side.

Be not afraid of being called un-fashionable.

The work of art shows people new directions and thinks of the future. The house thinks of the present.

The Potemkin city of which I wish to speak here is none other than our dear Vienna herself.

Does it follow that the house has nothing in common with art and is architecture not to be included in the arts? Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else that fulfils a function is to be excluded from the domain of art.

It does not do to use it with forms whose origin is intimately bound up with a specific material simply because no technical difficulties stand in the way.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century we abandoned tradition, it's at that point that I intend to renew it because the present is built on the past just as the past was built on the times that went before it.

The room has to be comfortable; the house has to look habitable.