On the whole, this is a good book, with plenty of information about these fascinating airmen. If you are new to the history of WWI in the air, it offers plenty to get you started. However the reader should be aware that the book is rifled with inaccuracies, some of them quite puzzling. Some pictures are misidentified, and there are numerous examples of statements which simply do not square with the facts.
Some examples of the types of errors found in the book (there are many others):
1) In Boelcke's bio, the author states that Boelcke crashed to his death in a Fokker Eindecker (pg.42), which is incorrect. But to make the error more puzzling, four pages later (pg.46) in Erwin Boehme's bio, he describes the collision saying that Boehme damaged Boelcke's "upper wing". That is true, Boelcke died in a biplane Albatros D.II... which completely contradicts the statement in Boelcke's bio, since the Eindecker did not have an "upper wing", being a monpolane.
2) In Karl Emil Schaefer's bio, a group photo has KES identified as the 3rd person on the left. Somewhat remarkable seeing as the plane they are standing in front of (a Fokker D.VII) was introduced a year after his death.
3) Several places pilots are credited with downing Sopwith Camels well before they were introduced to the front. The planes were most likely Sopwith Pups, or 1 1/2 Strutters. It seems almost as though an editor with little knowledge of the period came across references to "Sopwiths", and plugged in the only plane he knew of from that manufacturer. For instance, in Goering's bio the author states that he was downed by "Camels" in November 1916. The Camel was not introduced to the Western Front until late Summer 1917. Such an obvious error should never have made it to print.
I don't want a prospective reader to think that this book is not worth having, because it is. Many of the pilots covered in this work receive very little attention by most historians of the period. Their biography's are a welcome addition to my collection. I just want everyone to realize that it needs to be read with care. Obviously whoever edited this book, either did not know the period very well, or simply did a sloppy job. Either way, it is a shame that a good book on a very worthy topic ended up with so many unnecessary flaws.