What do you think?
Rate this book
Wings of War: The World War II Fighter Plane that Saved the Allies and the Believers Who Made It Fly
The incredible, untold story behind the rise of the P-51 Mustang, the World War II fighter plane that destroyed the Luftwaffe and made D-Day possible
“Aviation buffs will cheer this high-flying saga.”—Publishers Weekly “[A] fascinating book about passion and innovation.”—Walter Isaacson “An essential book for those who appreciate tales of military bravery, and also for all seeking understanding of decision-making under pressure. A major contribution.”—E. J. Dionne, Jr.
When the P-51 Mustang began tearing across European skies in early 1944, the Allies had been losing the air war for years. Staggering numbers of bomber crews, both British and American, had been shot down and killed thanks to the Luftwaffe’s superior fighter force. Not only did the air war appear grim, but any landing of troops in France was impossible while German fighters hunted overhead. But behind the scenes, a team of visionaries had begun to design a bold new type of airplane, one that could outrun and outmaneuver Germany’s best.
Wings of War is the incredible true story of the P-51 Mustang fighter and the unlikely crew of designers, engineers, test pilots, and army officers who brought it from the drafting table to the skies over World War II. This is hardly a straightforward tale of building an airplane—for years, the team was stymied by corruption within the defense industry and stonewalled by the Army Air Forces, who failed to understand the Mustang’s potential. But when squadrons of Mustangs were finally unleashed over Hitler’s empire, the Luftwaffe was decimated within months, clearing the skies for D-Day. A compelling, character-focused narrative replete with innovation, determination, and bravery, Wings of War is the never-before-told story of the airplane that truly changed the course of World War II.
“Aviation buffs will cheer this high-flying saga.”—Publishers Weekly “[A] fascinating book about passion and innovation.”—Walter Isaacson “An essential book for those who appreciate tales of military bravery, and also for all seeking understanding of decision-making under pressure. A major contribution.”—E. J. Dionne, Jr.
When the P-51 Mustang began tearing across European skies in early 1944, the Allies had been losing the air war for years. Staggering numbers of bomber crews, both British and American, had been shot down and killed thanks to the Luftwaffe’s superior fighter force. Not only did the air war appear grim, but any landing of troops in France was impossible while German fighters hunted overhead. But behind the scenes, a team of visionaries had begun to design a bold new type of airplane, one that could outrun and outmaneuver Germany’s best.
Wings of War is the incredible true story of the P-51 Mustang fighter and the unlikely crew of designers, engineers, test pilots, and army officers who brought it from the drafting table to the skies over World War II. This is hardly a straightforward tale of building an airplane—for years, the team was stymied by corruption within the defense industry and stonewalled by the Army Air Forces, who failed to understand the Mustang’s potential. But when squadrons of Mustangs were finally unleashed over Hitler’s empire, the Luftwaffe was decimated within months, clearing the skies for D-Day. A compelling, character-focused narrative replete with innovation, determination, and bravery, Wings of War is the never-before-told story of the airplane that truly changed the course of World War II.
Audible Audio
Published December 6, 2022
121 people are currently reading
324 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
December 21, 2022
This is the origin story of U.S. Army Air Force’s fastest fighter-bomber that defeated the Luftwaffe and changed the course of the war.
January 26, 2026
This is a biography of the P-51 Mustang, regarded by some experts as one of the most effective fighters of the Second World War, with close attention to its exceptional performance in terms of speed, range, and firepower. It focusses on its crucial role as a long‑range escort for bomber formations that helped the Allies to win the air war above Europe.
Its focus is not so much the combat, but focusses more on the difficult development process, inintial faulty assumptions, bureaucratic resistance and strategic errors that threatened the project’s survival. A lot of attention is given to Edgar Schmued, the original aircraft’s chief designer who was born in Germany but migrated to the United States when he was young.
Although technical at times, the story is readable and certainly interesting for anyone who wants to know more about this iconic aircraft.
Its focus is not so much the combat, but focusses more on the difficult development process, inintial faulty assumptions, bureaucratic resistance and strategic errors that threatened the project’s survival. A lot of attention is given to Edgar Schmued, the original aircraft’s chief designer who was born in Germany but migrated to the United States when he was young.
Although technical at times, the story is readable and certainly interesting for anyone who wants to know more about this iconic aircraft.
July 22, 2025
Not quite what I expected
Wings of War was not quite what I expected. Based on the publisher's blurb, I thought it would be a chronicle of the science and engineering behind a crucial war-winning weapon, the P-51 Mustang fighter. Thus, I was expecting something like Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, or Andrew Hodges' Alan Turing: The Enigma, which tells the story of how England secretly broke Nazi codes, or Chance and Design: Reminiscences of Science in Peace and War by Alan Hodgkin, which in part describes his work developing radar targeting devices for use in aircraft.
Authors David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White (whom I will henceforth refer to as "the Whites") completely succeeded in convincing me that the P-51 Mustang (why was an airplane named after a feral horse? -- OK, not important...) is on a par with Bletchley Park and radar as an innovation crucial to the winning of World War II and more important than the atomic bomb, which arrived too late in WWII to do more than put a period to already inevitable Allied victory. They also write well of air combat -- the combat sections of Wings of War are the most exciting parts.
Where the Whites fall short of the standard set by Rhodes, Hodges, and Hodgkin, however, is in explaining the science and engineering behind the P-51. They tell the story through the eyes of three main protagonists: Edgar Schmued, the designer who first imagined and built the P-51, Tommy Hitchcock, the man who fought for its adoption, and Don Blakeslee, an ace who fought in the P-51.
PART ONE of Wings of War thus tells about how Schmued designed the P-51. The Whites mostly fail to explain the science and technology behind Schmued's design. Indeed, they give the impression that the design of the P-51 sprang full-grown into Schmued's brain, with no antecedents or ideas behind it, and that over the course of the crucial 102 days he and his team just wrote it down and built it. (I will confess I'm being somewhat unfair here, but this was certainly the way it felt to me as I read.) Here are some questions I wanted to see answered: What makes an airplane a good fighter? How does a designer engineer these characteristics into his design? What were Schmued's key innovations, and how did they contribute to making the P-51 an outstanding fighter plane? Why had no one done these things before? What enabled Schmued to adopt his innovations?
Astonishingly, the first question, "What makes an airplane a good fighter?", is not even broached in PART ONE, where Schmued's design of the P-51 is described. From the later combat sections it appears that the answers are range, speed, and maneuverability. The Whites do have a little to say about Schmued's innovations. For instance, Schmued used second-degree curves (conic sections) in the shape of the P-51. He said, "I laid out the lines myself, and it was a first." Why? Why had no previous designer thought to use conics (an obvious idea to any mathematician)? Why did Schmued think this was important? Aside from some vague incantations of the phrase "Lift and Drag", you will search Wings of War in vain for an explanation of how second-degree curves make it a better fighter.
What makes PART ONE puzzling is that the Whites DO know how to present a compelling technical rationale for an innovation. They show this in their discussion of the Royce Merlin engine. It turns out that Schmued made an important mistake in his initial design of the P-51. He designed it with an American Allison engine that could not perform at the altitudes needed for the P-51 to effectively protect bombers. Rolls-Royce designed an aircraft engine, the Merlin (now THERE's a name that makes sense!) that worked effectively at high altitude. The Whites do an excellent job of explaining what it takes to make an engine work at high altitude (it's all about air pressure) and how Royce designed the Merlin to do that (superchargers!). The English and also Schmued modified the design of the P-51 to carry Merlins. The result was the P-51B that became the war-winning weapon.
There is a second defect in Wings of War. The Whites have an annoying tendency to talk to themselves. Their writing frequently makes the assumption that the reader already knows everything the Whites know and has the same interests they do. A particularly egregious (albeit unimportant) example of this occurs in the discussion of the Merlin engine. They write
My immediate reaction on reading this was, "Who the Heck is Craig Breedlove?" (except I didn't use the word "Heck"). I did a text search in case he had been mentioned earlier and I had forgotten about him -- nope. This is the sole mention in the entire book of Breedlove. So I googled him -- he's a race car driver. The Craig Breedlove remark is no more than a colorful but uninformative way to say that the Merlin was fast. The Whites don't appear to have conceived of the possibility of a reader who hadn't heard of Craig Breedlove. This kind of thing happens throughout the book. The Whites often substitute name-dropping for exposition. They will list a bunch of names of people or aircraft to illustrate a point, without apparently considering the possibility of readers who don't recognize these names. Although there are endnotes, they are not linked in the text (or at least were not in my ePUB ARC), and thus are of little use to a reader.
Wings of War definitely picks up once the P-51B has been built and put into combat. The Whites' passion for flying and air combat comes through loud and clear. (In fact, it points out rather too clearly how pale and wan by contrast their passion for science and engineering is.) I quite enjoyed the explanation of how the P-51 was used and up-engineered to win the air war in Europe, even defeating experimental jet fighters that the Nazis put into battle toward the end of the war.
I thank NetGalley and Penguin Group Dutton for an advance reader copy of Wings of War. This review contains my honest opinions.
Blog review.
Wings of War was not quite what I expected. Based on the publisher's blurb, I thought it would be a chronicle of the science and engineering behind a crucial war-winning weapon, the P-51 Mustang fighter. Thus, I was expecting something like Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, or Andrew Hodges' Alan Turing: The Enigma, which tells the story of how England secretly broke Nazi codes, or Chance and Design: Reminiscences of Science in Peace and War by Alan Hodgkin, which in part describes his work developing radar targeting devices for use in aircraft.
Authors David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White (whom I will henceforth refer to as "the Whites") completely succeeded in convincing me that the P-51 Mustang (why was an airplane named after a feral horse? -- OK, not important...) is on a par with Bletchley Park and radar as an innovation crucial to the winning of World War II and more important than the atomic bomb, which arrived too late in WWII to do more than put a period to already inevitable Allied victory. They also write well of air combat -- the combat sections of Wings of War are the most exciting parts.
Where the Whites fall short of the standard set by Rhodes, Hodges, and Hodgkin, however, is in explaining the science and engineering behind the P-51. They tell the story through the eyes of three main protagonists: Edgar Schmued, the designer who first imagined and built the P-51, Tommy Hitchcock, the man who fought for its adoption, and Don Blakeslee, an ace who fought in the P-51.
PART ONE of Wings of War thus tells about how Schmued designed the P-51. The Whites mostly fail to explain the science and technology behind Schmued's design. Indeed, they give the impression that the design of the P-51 sprang full-grown into Schmued's brain, with no antecedents or ideas behind it, and that over the course of the crucial 102 days he and his team just wrote it down and built it. (I will confess I'm being somewhat unfair here, but this was certainly the way it felt to me as I read.) Here are some questions I wanted to see answered: What makes an airplane a good fighter? How does a designer engineer these characteristics into his design? What were Schmued's key innovations, and how did they contribute to making the P-51 an outstanding fighter plane? Why had no one done these things before? What enabled Schmued to adopt his innovations?
Astonishingly, the first question, "What makes an airplane a good fighter?", is not even broached in PART ONE, where Schmued's design of the P-51 is described. From the later combat sections it appears that the answers are range, speed, and maneuverability. The Whites do have a little to say about Schmued's innovations. For instance, Schmued used second-degree curves (conic sections) in the shape of the P-51. He said, "I laid out the lines myself, and it was a first." Why? Why had no previous designer thought to use conics (an obvious idea to any mathematician)? Why did Schmued think this was important? Aside from some vague incantations of the phrase "Lift and Drag", you will search Wings of War in vain for an explanation of how second-degree curves make it a better fighter.
What makes PART ONE puzzling is that the Whites DO know how to present a compelling technical rationale for an innovation. They show this in their discussion of the Royce Merlin engine. It turns out that Schmued made an important mistake in his initial design of the P-51. He designed it with an American Allison engine that could not perform at the altitudes needed for the P-51 to effectively protect bombers. Rolls-Royce designed an aircraft engine, the Merlin (now THERE's a name that makes sense!) that worked effectively at high altitude. The Whites do an excellent job of explaining what it takes to make an engine work at high altitude (it's all about air pressure) and how Royce designed the Merlin to do that (superchargers!). The English and also Schmued modified the design of the P-51 to carry Merlins. The result was the P-51B that became the war-winning weapon.
There is a second defect in Wings of War. The Whites have an annoying tendency to talk to themselves. Their writing frequently makes the assumption that the reader already knows everything the Whites know and has the same interests they do. A particularly egregious (albeit unimportant) example of this occurs in the discussion of the Merlin engine. They write
The Merlin 61 delivered 1,490 horsepower. It ran like Craig Breedlove setting the land speed record.
My immediate reaction on reading this was, "Who the Heck is Craig Breedlove?" (except I didn't use the word "Heck"). I did a text search in case he had been mentioned earlier and I had forgotten about him -- nope. This is the sole mention in the entire book of Breedlove. So I googled him -- he's a race car driver. The Craig Breedlove remark is no more than a colorful but uninformative way to say that the Merlin was fast. The Whites don't appear to have conceived of the possibility of a reader who hadn't heard of Craig Breedlove. This kind of thing happens throughout the book. The Whites often substitute name-dropping for exposition. They will list a bunch of names of people or aircraft to illustrate a point, without apparently considering the possibility of readers who don't recognize these names. Although there are endnotes, they are not linked in the text (or at least were not in my ePUB ARC), and thus are of little use to a reader.
Wings of War definitely picks up once the P-51B has been built and put into combat. The Whites' passion for flying and air combat comes through loud and clear. (In fact, it points out rather too clearly how pale and wan by contrast their passion for science and engineering is.) I quite enjoyed the explanation of how the P-51 was used and up-engineered to win the air war in Europe, even defeating experimental jet fighters that the Nazis put into battle toward the end of the war.
I thank NetGalley and Penguin Group Dutton for an advance reader copy of Wings of War. This review contains my honest opinions.
Blog review.
March 1, 2023
Didn't finish it. Thought it was poorly written and rushed. Might have got to it later, but I am sure the P51 performed badly until the Merlin engine was used. This book seems to mention it was used from the beginning. Disappointed as was looking forward to this book.
March 12, 2024
How sad. This topic had a lot of potential, but the execution was poor. What should have been a magazine article was dragged out into a book.
Throughout, there was a whimsical writing style that is more suitable for a novel. The authors try to be too clever and poetic, sometimes to the point of misusing terms in their attempts to use flowery language.
For example, they say, "By 1944 the North American factories were spewing out P-51Bs like so many M1 Garand rifles." I understand that they're trying not to dryly state that the factories were producing many airplanes, but the fact is that in Jan 1944, 370 P-51s were produced. In the same month, 122,002 M1 rifles were manufactured: over 320 times more rifles than airplanes. So it's inaccurate.
Many times they applied naval terms to air combat, like describing B-24 bombers as "battlewagons," which are actually battleships. They somehow fell in love with calling bombers "battlewagons." There are many other such instances.
The authors talks about German aircraft firing missiles into bomber formations. No, they were rockets. Missiles are guided. These were unguided rockets.
They go into some detail about the Pearl Harbor attack, mentioning the sinking of the "heavy cruiser," CL-7 Raleigh. The L in CL means "light." It was a light cruiser.
There is a useful map showing the range from English bases of the Mustang's predecessor, the P-47. It depicts an operational range of 375 miles, compared to the P-38's range of 520 miles. On the facing page, they say the P-38's range was double. But 520 is not double the range of 375, not even close.
Jimmy Doolittle appears in the photo gallery, wearing the two stars of a Major General. The caption says he was a General of the Air Force. However, he only ever reached three stars on active duty and a fourth in retirement decades later. He never reached the 5 stars of a General of the Air Force.
These are just the inaccuracies that I noticed. It made me call into question everything I was reading, so I couldn't trust the other facts that were being purported. I found myself trying to verify facts online so I wouldn't go around the rest of my life citing facts that were untrue.
I mentioned earlier that this book seemed to run out of steam because it should have been a well-written article. Five pages were wasted to describe the physical environment around the Casablanca Conference. It's just filler. Meanwhile, even though they mentioned the later D model of the P-51, they never went into any considerable detail about it. I would have rather heard about that than the gardens of Casablanca.
There is a cheerleading tone to the book, in which the Americans and the P-51 can do no wrong, and the enemy was feckless in any attempts to stop the righteous allies. They picked up on the World War One pejorative of referring to Germans as the Boche. They used the term five times, and not in quotes from airmen of the time. The authors used it. I would expect history authors to be a little more impartial. Anyway, it was a term from WWI, and this is a book about WW2. By then, other derogatory terms were in use. At least use those ones. Well, they did once, calling the Germans "Jerry."
There were two main threats to aircraft: flak (anti-aircraft artillery) and enemy fighters. There was mention of flak when describing the troubles experienced before the Mustang appeared in Europe, but there was no analysis of what proportion of bombers had been shot down by flak versus being downed by enemy fighters. As a consequence, the ultimate effect of the arrival of the Mustang was not completely covered. Later, there are dashing tails of P-51s shooting down me 262 jet fighters, but there was no sense of proportion there, either. They were just specific descriptions of swashbuckling and derring do. See, now I am infected with unnecessarily flowery descriptions.
Late in the book, the authors finally describe some impacts with the statistic that the P-51s had shot down 160 planes in one month compared to 120 over the previous year. I was looking for a lot more of this kind of analysis throughout the book.
I did learn a few things that I had no idea about, such as the Russian shuttle flights, in which bomber packages would fly to their target in Germany and continue on, landing in Russia. I just wish this book were less amateurish.
Throughout, there was a whimsical writing style that is more suitable for a novel. The authors try to be too clever and poetic, sometimes to the point of misusing terms in their attempts to use flowery language.
For example, they say, "By 1944 the North American factories were spewing out P-51Bs like so many M1 Garand rifles." I understand that they're trying not to dryly state that the factories were producing many airplanes, but the fact is that in Jan 1944, 370 P-51s were produced. In the same month, 122,002 M1 rifles were manufactured: over 320 times more rifles than airplanes. So it's inaccurate.
Many times they applied naval terms to air combat, like describing B-24 bombers as "battlewagons," which are actually battleships. They somehow fell in love with calling bombers "battlewagons." There are many other such instances.
The authors talks about German aircraft firing missiles into bomber formations. No, they were rockets. Missiles are guided. These were unguided rockets.
They go into some detail about the Pearl Harbor attack, mentioning the sinking of the "heavy cruiser," CL-7 Raleigh. The L in CL means "light." It was a light cruiser.
There is a useful map showing the range from English bases of the Mustang's predecessor, the P-47. It depicts an operational range of 375 miles, compared to the P-38's range of 520 miles. On the facing page, they say the P-38's range was double. But 520 is not double the range of 375, not even close.
Jimmy Doolittle appears in the photo gallery, wearing the two stars of a Major General. The caption says he was a General of the Air Force. However, he only ever reached three stars on active duty and a fourth in retirement decades later. He never reached the 5 stars of a General of the Air Force.
These are just the inaccuracies that I noticed. It made me call into question everything I was reading, so I couldn't trust the other facts that were being purported. I found myself trying to verify facts online so I wouldn't go around the rest of my life citing facts that were untrue.
I mentioned earlier that this book seemed to run out of steam because it should have been a well-written article. Five pages were wasted to describe the physical environment around the Casablanca Conference. It's just filler. Meanwhile, even though they mentioned the later D model of the P-51, they never went into any considerable detail about it. I would have rather heard about that than the gardens of Casablanca.
There is a cheerleading tone to the book, in which the Americans and the P-51 can do no wrong, and the enemy was feckless in any attempts to stop the righteous allies. They picked up on the World War One pejorative of referring to Germans as the Boche. They used the term five times, and not in quotes from airmen of the time. The authors used it. I would expect history authors to be a little more impartial. Anyway, it was a term from WWI, and this is a book about WW2. By then, other derogatory terms were in use. At least use those ones. Well, they did once, calling the Germans "Jerry."
There were two main threats to aircraft: flak (anti-aircraft artillery) and enemy fighters. There was mention of flak when describing the troubles experienced before the Mustang appeared in Europe, but there was no analysis of what proportion of bombers had been shot down by flak versus being downed by enemy fighters. As a consequence, the ultimate effect of the arrival of the Mustang was not completely covered. Later, there are dashing tails of P-51s shooting down me 262 jet fighters, but there was no sense of proportion there, either. They were just specific descriptions of swashbuckling and derring do. See, now I am infected with unnecessarily flowery descriptions.
Late in the book, the authors finally describe some impacts with the statistic that the P-51s had shot down 160 planes in one month compared to 120 over the previous year. I was looking for a lot more of this kind of analysis throughout the book.
I did learn a few things that I had no idea about, such as the Russian shuttle flights, in which bomber packages would fly to their target in Germany and continue on, landing in Russia. I just wish this book were less amateurish.
December 14, 2023
Wings of War is poorly written and poorly researched. It contains many errors, many of which could be checked simply by doing an internet search. The authors obviously do not have a background in military history, especially military aviation. Some of the egregious errors made are:
- Listing the SPAD XIII of WWI as a British aircraft, when it was built by the French, (pg. 15)
- The description of how a wing generates lift on pg. 37 is actually backwards. In reality, air passes more quickly over the top of the wing, lowering the pressure, so that the pressure on the bottom of the wing is greater than that on the top, generating a net force up on the wing which is lift.
- The statement that the Germans had nothing like British radar. The Germans had functional radar at least by 1939, if not before. (pg.45)
- The statement on pg. 222 that “while Sweden was technically a neutral country, it was occupied by Nazi Germany.” is totally false!
- Use of the term” religiocide” which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, but which some websites describe as “religious cleansing”; however, “religiocide” does not appear to be an actual term. (pg. 236)
- On pg. 259 the authors describe the German Go229 flying wing jet powered bomber with a speed of 720 mph. A check shows that the never to exceed speed for this bomber was 620 mph. There were 3 prototypes, one of which crashed. The bomber was never operational.
Having read many memoirs of air combat, I also found the descriptions of air combat in this book very juvenile,
- The book continually refers to bomber aircraft as “sky rams” and “sky arks”
- Describing the air combat of Lt. Chatterly of the 4th Fighter Group on pg., 170, ”Chatterly shucked out the dead Messerschmitt and dashed on.”
- In describing the assembly of aircraft for a Schweinfurt raid: ”. . .and finally gathered in the stronghold of the sky into a convoy covering miles and miles of ceiling.” (pg. 143)
- In describing bomber raids on oil refineries, “. . . it kicked off a campaign that would spill oil from Nazi Germany’s system like plasma.” And , “Oil for the lamps of the Nazi hydra had run out.” (pg. 237)
The authors obviously do not have a background in military history, military aviation, or any of its technical aspects. One has to wonder why they chose to write this book and why they did not seek the assistance of more knowledgeable professionals. For two Harvard graduates, this book lacks serious research with writing that is astoundingly puerile. It is a wonder that this book was even published. Not a good book.
- Listing the SPAD XIII of WWI as a British aircraft, when it was built by the French, (pg. 15)
- The description of how a wing generates lift on pg. 37 is actually backwards. In reality, air passes more quickly over the top of the wing, lowering the pressure, so that the pressure on the bottom of the wing is greater than that on the top, generating a net force up on the wing which is lift.
- The statement that the Germans had nothing like British radar. The Germans had functional radar at least by 1939, if not before. (pg.45)
- The statement on pg. 222 that “while Sweden was technically a neutral country, it was occupied by Nazi Germany.” is totally false!
- Use of the term” religiocide” which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, but which some websites describe as “religious cleansing”; however, “religiocide” does not appear to be an actual term. (pg. 236)
- On pg. 259 the authors describe the German Go229 flying wing jet powered bomber with a speed of 720 mph. A check shows that the never to exceed speed for this bomber was 620 mph. There were 3 prototypes, one of which crashed. The bomber was never operational.
Having read many memoirs of air combat, I also found the descriptions of air combat in this book very juvenile,
- The book continually refers to bomber aircraft as “sky rams” and “sky arks”
- Describing the air combat of Lt. Chatterly of the 4th Fighter Group on pg., 170, ”Chatterly shucked out the dead Messerschmitt and dashed on.”
- In describing the assembly of aircraft for a Schweinfurt raid: ”. . .and finally gathered in the stronghold of the sky into a convoy covering miles and miles of ceiling.” (pg. 143)
- In describing bomber raids on oil refineries, “. . . it kicked off a campaign that would spill oil from Nazi Germany’s system like plasma.” And , “Oil for the lamps of the Nazi hydra had run out.” (pg. 237)
The authors obviously do not have a background in military history, military aviation, or any of its technical aspects. One has to wonder why they chose to write this book and why they did not seek the assistance of more knowledgeable professionals. For two Harvard graduates, this book lacks serious research with writing that is astoundingly puerile. It is a wonder that this book was even published. Not a good book.
March 9, 2024
I absolutely love the P-51 Mustang, so I thought surely I would enjoy this book. However, this book doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. I think saying this book is about the P-51 is a bit misleading. After some interesting chapters about the early development of the Mustang, it sort of turned into a broad overview of the war in Europe, with slight concentration on the 8th AF. I’m not sure why there was so much dedicated to talking about completely unrelated subjects, with just casual glances back at the P-51.
My biggest concern with this book is that it’s full or historical inaccuracies. It seems like the author was trying more to generate entertainment with his writing style, than actually publishing good history. I don’t even want to begin to gather all the mistakes and inaccuracies to list them here. Suffice it to say there was at least one every few pages. It seems that the authors are not ww2 historians, nor are they overly familiar with aviation. I’m not entirely sure what the purpose of this book is supposed to be.
My biggest concern with this book is that it’s full or historical inaccuracies. It seems like the author was trying more to generate entertainment with his writing style, than actually publishing good history. I don’t even want to begin to gather all the mistakes and inaccuracies to list them here. Suffice it to say there was at least one every few pages. It seems that the authors are not ww2 historians, nor are they overly familiar with aviation. I’m not entirely sure what the purpose of this book is supposed to be.
September 18, 2025
Poorly Written
I found some new and interesting facts about the development and deployment of the P51 in this book. But the writing, especially the choice of adjectives that were puerile and in many cases inappropriate made this a painful read. If it was published more recently, I'd suspect heavy AI usage. Don't waste your money.
I found some new and interesting facts about the development and deployment of the P51 in this book. But the writing, especially the choice of adjectives that were puerile and in many cases inappropriate made this a painful read. If it was published more recently, I'd suspect heavy AI usage. Don't waste your money.
December 16, 2023
Do not buy this book. This book is absolutely terrible. It is riddled with technical errors, errors of context, timelines, aircraft designations, engine model numbers, references to irrelevancies and more. I found myself getting so angry, I had to put it down several times.
If you are going to write about what is, along with the Spitfire, the most recognised fighter aircraft of World War II, you had better get your research right. While this book contains some interesting biographical data about designer Edgar Schmued, and other key figures like Tommy Hitchcock, it absolutely misses or completely misstates, key developments around how the Mustang came to be developed into the Rolls Royce Mustang X and then Merlin engined P-51B and D.
I got just 37 pages in before I found a compete misstating of air flow around a wing. The authors explain that lift is created "when the air under the wing passes more quickly and air moving over the top moves more slowly" This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of how a wing works. They then explain how the Mustang’s laminar flow wing was teardrop shaped, which is complete nonsense.
On the same page they describe a ‘Meredith radiator’ when in fact F.W Meredith at the RAE made key discoveries in ducted flow and described how radiator ducts can be designed to create a small amount of jet thrust to lower cooling system drag. This was key to the Mustang’s aerodynamic performance but is not even described properly.
This book also suffers by comparison because I had just read 'Mustang- the untold story’ by Matthew Willis- a must-read if you want to understand the origins of the Mustang (Allison engine) and ‘Rolls Royce and the Mustang’ by David Birch (Rolls Royce Heritage Society)- a must, if you want to understand how the Merlin ended up in the Mustang and made it the fighter it became.
Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly make errors of designation, calling the Mustang 1, (the British named the aircraft) the P-51A - which it was not, (XP-51 being used as a US designation for two RAF Mustang 1s (Model NA-73) held back for evaluation). The Mustang 1 initial order was the Model NA-73, the follow-on order included changes to make it the NA-83, and the Mustang 1A was the model NA-91. The P-51A was Model 99.
The British had paid to have the Mustang developed directly with North American and did not involve the US military (Wright Field) at all, hence the correct designations for all early aircraft are the British ones.
The NA-91 was again developed for the RAF, but the US Army retained 57 of the 200 ordered by the RAF and designated them P-51 (no ‘A’) and converted most into the P-51-2/F-6A tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The NA-97 was the first aircraft ordered by the USAAC for US use as dive bomber (designated A-36) and the NA-99 was then developed for the USAAC and finally designated P-51A (Mustang II by the RAF.)
They then claim on page 45 that in the Battle of Britain, the “The British were better pilots” when in fact, the Germans were generally much more experienced and had better tactics that cost the RAF dearly in the early parts of the battle. A number of Luftwaffe pilots were very experienced, having flown in the Spanish civil war and then in France. British pilots, outnumbered and incredibly brave, caught up quickly and abandoned outdated tactics like Vic formations, but to say they were 'better' this early in the war denies reality.
The authors then repeat a famously misunderstood event, when they describe the dramatic Uxbridge bunker scene where Churchill asks AVM Keith Park, OC of 11 Group what reserves there are, and Park replies: 'There are none'. He is of course referring only to 11 Group, as there were plenty of reserves in 10 and 12 groups waiting to head into battle. This is just sloppy research.
Along the way they get the ranks of key British officers wrong. There is no -(lowercase) 'chief air marshal'. That would be like saying a 'general-lieutenant' instead of Lieutenant General for a US officer. The rank is Air Chief Marshal...
In describing the battle of Britain, on page 49, they make the bizarre claim that "The real hero of the engagement was a 1,640-pound liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine-the Rolls Royce Merlin 61"
The only problem was that the Merlin 61 didn't exist in 1940 when the Battle of Britain was being fought. Earlier Merlin variants like the Mk III, fitted to Hurricanes and Spitfires saw the RAF through that historic engagement.
When they do describe the Merlin 60 series, they again get the model number wrong, and use a mystifying title “Turbine like a typhoon" for the chapter which is nonsensical. Mechanically driven superchargers as in the Merlin, do not have turbines. Only turbo-superchargers, driven by exhaust gases (as in the P-38/P-47) have turbines. The production Merlin Spitfires or Mustangs never had a turbo-supercharger. They then oddly, compare an aircraft engine to a ship engine, then to a car engine describing how the Merlin 'shrieked at 3,000 rpm'. (I have heard many Merlins and have yet to hear one shriek-rather they growl). They could have made a much more relevant point by simply contrasting car engines that make peak power between 6 and 8,000rpm (depending on the car) where the Merlin made peak power at just 3,000rpm. This is a much clearer contrast of the differences between aircraft and car engines.
When they correctly mention the Merlin 61, which was developed in 1941, they completely fail to describe in anything but passing detail, the creation of the Merlin 60/70 series and its defining aspect, the supercharging system, mentioning its developer, Stanley Hooker only in passing. The 60 series arrived after Hooker took the genius approach of placing the compressors in series, and adding an intercooler to lower charge inlet temperatures and so allow higher boost and therefore power, creating a world-leading, compact, two-speed, two-stage supercharging system. This was THE pivotal development that allowed the Merlin 60 /70 and the equivalent US Packard (licence built) Merlin V-1650 series to fly and fight at the heights needed later to escort US bombers.
On the same page, to give a parallel, they refer to Craig Breedlove, an American who briefly held land speed records in the 1960s and of whom, few people today would have any awareness.
Then on page 63, they describe the British Mustang X test aircraft as ‘Merlin 61 being fitted to a P-51A body’. This never happened. The engine was a Merlin 65 (not 61) and the aircraft a Mustang I, not a P-51A (see earlier model details).
They then compare this transformation to a Jarvik-7 artificial heart, something pioneered in 1982. Absolutely bizarre. A heart is more comparable to a fuel pump where an engine compares better to muscle. Either way, the comparison is utterly pointless and nonsensical. Maybe they are doing product placement?
Along the way they completely leave out the key role that Brig Gen William Kepner had in forcing the manufacturers to put extra fuel in the Mustang and instead credit his boss, Maj Gen Barney Giles. Wright Field actually threatened to prefer changes against Kepner for "interfering with the specifications of an airplane" for his efforts to put more fuel in the P-51. (This is described in detail in Geoffrey Perret's Winged Victory (p-261-270)
On page 116 they claim the B-17G could carry 17,600lbs of bombs or about nine tonnes. This is simply not true. External stations were tried in the F model to boost the bomb load but because of the dramatic effect on climb and speed these were deleted and very rarely fitted to the a few G models, the most widely produced variant. In effect no more than a handful of ops used this configuration.
In reality, loaded with 10 men and all the ammunition they needed, the average bomb load was in 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) for short range missions and just 4,500 lb on long range missions. (This was just 500lb more than that the 2 crew DeHavilland Mosquito, but 150 miles an hour slower.)
The coup de grâce is a picture in the illustrated section, of what the authors claim is a Messerschmitt Me1o9. In fact, it is Hispano Aviacion HA-1112 Buchon built in 1954 and powered by-you guessed it- a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine. Facepalm!
Who proof read this book? Certainly no one with any knowledge of historical aviation, much like the authors. The child's drawing on the back cover nicely illustrates the quality of information contained in this book. I wish I could get my money back...
If you want to be misled, confused, led up the wrong path and given an extremely fuzzy presentation of the development of the Mustang, then this is the book for you… This book is so bad I had to force myself to finish it.
If I could give it minus stars, I would…
If you are going to write about what is, along with the Spitfire, the most recognised fighter aircraft of World War II, you had better get your research right. While this book contains some interesting biographical data about designer Edgar Schmued, and other key figures like Tommy Hitchcock, it absolutely misses or completely misstates, key developments around how the Mustang came to be developed into the Rolls Royce Mustang X and then Merlin engined P-51B and D.
I got just 37 pages in before I found a compete misstating of air flow around a wing. The authors explain that lift is created "when the air under the wing passes more quickly and air moving over the top moves more slowly" This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of how a wing works. They then explain how the Mustang’s laminar flow wing was teardrop shaped, which is complete nonsense.
On the same page they describe a ‘Meredith radiator’ when in fact F.W Meredith at the RAE made key discoveries in ducted flow and described how radiator ducts can be designed to create a small amount of jet thrust to lower cooling system drag. This was key to the Mustang’s aerodynamic performance but is not even described properly.
This book also suffers by comparison because I had just read 'Mustang- the untold story’ by Matthew Willis- a must-read if you want to understand the origins of the Mustang (Allison engine) and ‘Rolls Royce and the Mustang’ by David Birch (Rolls Royce Heritage Society)- a must, if you want to understand how the Merlin ended up in the Mustang and made it the fighter it became.
Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly make errors of designation, calling the Mustang 1, (the British named the aircraft) the P-51A - which it was not, (XP-51 being used as a US designation for two RAF Mustang 1s (Model NA-73) held back for evaluation). The Mustang 1 initial order was the Model NA-73, the follow-on order included changes to make it the NA-83, and the Mustang 1A was the model NA-91. The P-51A was Model 99.
The British had paid to have the Mustang developed directly with North American and did not involve the US military (Wright Field) at all, hence the correct designations for all early aircraft are the British ones.
The NA-91 was again developed for the RAF, but the US Army retained 57 of the 200 ordered by the RAF and designated them P-51 (no ‘A’) and converted most into the P-51-2/F-6A tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The NA-97 was the first aircraft ordered by the USAAC for US use as dive bomber (designated A-36) and the NA-99 was then developed for the USAAC and finally designated P-51A (Mustang II by the RAF.)
They then claim on page 45 that in the Battle of Britain, the “The British were better pilots” when in fact, the Germans were generally much more experienced and had better tactics that cost the RAF dearly in the early parts of the battle. A number of Luftwaffe pilots were very experienced, having flown in the Spanish civil war and then in France. British pilots, outnumbered and incredibly brave, caught up quickly and abandoned outdated tactics like Vic formations, but to say they were 'better' this early in the war denies reality.
The authors then repeat a famously misunderstood event, when they describe the dramatic Uxbridge bunker scene where Churchill asks AVM Keith Park, OC of 11 Group what reserves there are, and Park replies: 'There are none'. He is of course referring only to 11 Group, as there were plenty of reserves in 10 and 12 groups waiting to head into battle. This is just sloppy research.
Along the way they get the ranks of key British officers wrong. There is no -(lowercase) 'chief air marshal'. That would be like saying a 'general-lieutenant' instead of Lieutenant General for a US officer. The rank is Air Chief Marshal...
In describing the battle of Britain, on page 49, they make the bizarre claim that "The real hero of the engagement was a 1,640-pound liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine-the Rolls Royce Merlin 61"
The only problem was that the Merlin 61 didn't exist in 1940 when the Battle of Britain was being fought. Earlier Merlin variants like the Mk III, fitted to Hurricanes and Spitfires saw the RAF through that historic engagement.
When they do describe the Merlin 60 series, they again get the model number wrong, and use a mystifying title “Turbine like a typhoon" for the chapter which is nonsensical. Mechanically driven superchargers as in the Merlin, do not have turbines. Only turbo-superchargers, driven by exhaust gases (as in the P-38/P-47) have turbines. The production Merlin Spitfires or Mustangs never had a turbo-supercharger. They then oddly, compare an aircraft engine to a ship engine, then to a car engine describing how the Merlin 'shrieked at 3,000 rpm'. (I have heard many Merlins and have yet to hear one shriek-rather they growl). They could have made a much more relevant point by simply contrasting car engines that make peak power between 6 and 8,000rpm (depending on the car) where the Merlin made peak power at just 3,000rpm. This is a much clearer contrast of the differences between aircraft and car engines.
When they correctly mention the Merlin 61, which was developed in 1941, they completely fail to describe in anything but passing detail, the creation of the Merlin 60/70 series and its defining aspect, the supercharging system, mentioning its developer, Stanley Hooker only in passing. The 60 series arrived after Hooker took the genius approach of placing the compressors in series, and adding an intercooler to lower charge inlet temperatures and so allow higher boost and therefore power, creating a world-leading, compact, two-speed, two-stage supercharging system. This was THE pivotal development that allowed the Merlin 60 /70 and the equivalent US Packard (licence built) Merlin V-1650 series to fly and fight at the heights needed later to escort US bombers.
On the same page, to give a parallel, they refer to Craig Breedlove, an American who briefly held land speed records in the 1960s and of whom, few people today would have any awareness.
Then on page 63, they describe the British Mustang X test aircraft as ‘Merlin 61 being fitted to a P-51A body’. This never happened. The engine was a Merlin 65 (not 61) and the aircraft a Mustang I, not a P-51A (see earlier model details).
They then compare this transformation to a Jarvik-7 artificial heart, something pioneered in 1982. Absolutely bizarre. A heart is more comparable to a fuel pump where an engine compares better to muscle. Either way, the comparison is utterly pointless and nonsensical. Maybe they are doing product placement?
Along the way they completely leave out the key role that Brig Gen William Kepner had in forcing the manufacturers to put extra fuel in the Mustang and instead credit his boss, Maj Gen Barney Giles. Wright Field actually threatened to prefer changes against Kepner for "interfering with the specifications of an airplane" for his efforts to put more fuel in the P-51. (This is described in detail in Geoffrey Perret's Winged Victory (p-261-270)
On page 116 they claim the B-17G could carry 17,600lbs of bombs or about nine tonnes. This is simply not true. External stations were tried in the F model to boost the bomb load but because of the dramatic effect on climb and speed these were deleted and very rarely fitted to the a few G models, the most widely produced variant. In effect no more than a handful of ops used this configuration.
In reality, loaded with 10 men and all the ammunition they needed, the average bomb load was in 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) for short range missions and just 4,500 lb on long range missions. (This was just 500lb more than that the 2 crew DeHavilland Mosquito, but 150 miles an hour slower.)
The coup de grâce is a picture in the illustrated section, of what the authors claim is a Messerschmitt Me1o9. In fact, it is Hispano Aviacion HA-1112 Buchon built in 1954 and powered by-you guessed it- a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine. Facepalm!
Who proof read this book? Certainly no one with any knowledge of historical aviation, much like the authors. The child's drawing on the back cover nicely illustrates the quality of information contained in this book. I wish I could get my money back...
If you want to be misled, confused, led up the wrong path and given an extremely fuzzy presentation of the development of the Mustang, then this is the book for you… This book is so bad I had to force myself to finish it.
If I could give it minus stars, I would…
January 11, 2026
I am disappointed in the many factual errors: without discussing the details of US army military ranks as permanent or temporary in WW2, the authors' statement that Eisenhower planned "Symbol/Casablanca" wartime conference is entirely wrong and at that time he was a LTG, not BG as they state. At that time Eisenhower was CIC-Allied Forces in North Africa. The conference was planned by Roosevelt and Churchill, their immediate aides, and the Chiefs of Staff of the two country's military establishments (Combined Chiefs of Staff).
The Germany First strategy was agreed to at Arcadia in January 1942 (in Washington DC when Churchill and Roosevelt met and the Combined Joint Chiefs established), not at Casablanca.
The issue at Casablanca was a "slight-modication" to increase material to the Pacific, which gave Ernest King (CNO/COMINCH-US Fleet) and the other US chiefs (Leahy, Marshall & Arnold), added leverage whenever the British Chiefs & Churchill were for delaying invading NW Europe or adventuring into the Balkans: the US could decide to lessen its Germany First commitment if the British balked at invading NW Europe or waded into the Balkans.
Probably the most significant (non-technical) outcome of Casablanca was the declaration of "unconditional surrender" required of the three major belligerents—Germany, Italy, and Japan. Supposedly this was a "spontaneous" statement of Roosevelt, but was accepted by Churchill. It was likely done to ensure that Stalin, who was not present as "too pressed" on the Eastern Front, would not seek an accommodation with Germany.
I read the book and agree with the one & two star reviews. And there are more errors, bad writing, etc. than noted in those reviews. The authors' are clearly out of their league as historians, researchers, and as writers. There are independent scholars/historians who chose not be academicians and are outstanding historians and writers: for example, Barbara Tuchman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lynne Olson (American and wider history), and Dan Jones (English medieval history).
I am particularly off-put by the authors' dragging in retired GEN Carns' story (that he cannot confirm) of Johnson's White House skulduggery in awarding F-111 contract. It has no relevancy to the P-51 story of illicit and fraudulent actions by MG Bennett Meyers.
I found the writing to be turgid, hyperbolic, cliched, and its metaphoric allusions inappropriate in agreement with the one and two star raters. I would not read any other of their works based upon this bad/poor attempt to tell an interesting piece of WW2 military history.
The subtitle "The World War II Fighter Plane That Saved the Allies . . ." is pure balderdash; there were lots of things that "saved the allies" including landing craft, radar, proximity fuse, production capacity, military command structure, the Combined Chiefs organization, integration of tactical air at the division level and on and on.
Two final comments:
How do publishers/editors allow such sloppy writing to go out the door—editors are door-keepers and should be mentors of good writing. There were good-old days of editors, who demanded clarity, accuracy, and good usage of words; in many works, fiction and non-fiction, it appears no longer a requirement.
How do publishers (and editors) handoff manuscripts to copy editors who are not factually knowledge about the period/milieu in which the storytelling occurs. Any amateur (military) historian would recognize the obvious errors and any amateur (expository) writer would recognize the poor writing. Whiz-bank words are not good writing.
And it is only going to get worse with AI-source stuff—bad research, bad writing.
The Germany First strategy was agreed to at Arcadia in January 1942 (in Washington DC when Churchill and Roosevelt met and the Combined Joint Chiefs established), not at Casablanca.
The issue at Casablanca was a "slight-modication" to increase material to the Pacific, which gave Ernest King (CNO/COMINCH-US Fleet) and the other US chiefs (Leahy, Marshall & Arnold), added leverage whenever the British Chiefs & Churchill were for delaying invading NW Europe or adventuring into the Balkans: the US could decide to lessen its Germany First commitment if the British balked at invading NW Europe or waded into the Balkans.
Probably the most significant (non-technical) outcome of Casablanca was the declaration of "unconditional surrender" required of the three major belligerents—Germany, Italy, and Japan. Supposedly this was a "spontaneous" statement of Roosevelt, but was accepted by Churchill. It was likely done to ensure that Stalin, who was not present as "too pressed" on the Eastern Front, would not seek an accommodation with Germany.
I read the book and agree with the one & two star reviews. And there are more errors, bad writing, etc. than noted in those reviews. The authors' are clearly out of their league as historians, researchers, and as writers. There are independent scholars/historians who chose not be academicians and are outstanding historians and writers: for example, Barbara Tuchman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lynne Olson (American and wider history), and Dan Jones (English medieval history).
I am particularly off-put by the authors' dragging in retired GEN Carns' story (that he cannot confirm) of Johnson's White House skulduggery in awarding F-111 contract. It has no relevancy to the P-51 story of illicit and fraudulent actions by MG Bennett Meyers.
I found the writing to be turgid, hyperbolic, cliched, and its metaphoric allusions inappropriate in agreement with the one and two star raters. I would not read any other of their works based upon this bad/poor attempt to tell an interesting piece of WW2 military history.
The subtitle "The World War II Fighter Plane That Saved the Allies . . ." is pure balderdash; there were lots of things that "saved the allies" including landing craft, radar, proximity fuse, production capacity, military command structure, the Combined Chiefs organization, integration of tactical air at the division level and on and on.
Two final comments:
How do publishers/editors allow such sloppy writing to go out the door—editors are door-keepers and should be mentors of good writing. There were good-old days of editors, who demanded clarity, accuracy, and good usage of words; in many works, fiction and non-fiction, it appears no longer a requirement.
How do publishers (and editors) handoff manuscripts to copy editors who are not factually knowledge about the period/milieu in which the storytelling occurs. Any amateur (military) historian would recognize the obvious errors and any amateur (expository) writer would recognize the poor writing. Whiz-bank words are not good writing.
And it is only going to get worse with AI-source stuff—bad research, bad writing.
June 7, 2024
Do not buy this book. This book is absolutely terrible. It is riddled with technical errors, errors of context, timelines, aircraft designations, engine model numbers, references to irrelevancies and more. I found myself getting so angry, I had to put it down several times.
If you are going to write about what is, along with the Spitfire, the most recognised fighter aircraft of World War II, you had better get your research right. While this book contains some interesting biographical data about designer Edgar Schmued, and other key figures like Tommy Hitchcock, it absolutely misses or completely misstates, key developments around how the Mustang came to be developed into the Rolls Royce Mustang X and then Merlin engined P-51B and D.
I got just 37 pages in before I found a compete misstating of air flow around a wing. The authors explain that lift is created "when the air under the wing passes more quickly and air moving over the top moves more slowly" This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of how a wing works. They then explain how the Mustang’s laminar flow wing was teardrop shaped, which is complete nonsense.
On the same page they describe a ‘Meredith radiator’ when in fact F.W Meredith at the RAE made key discoveries in ducted flow and described how radiator ducts can be designed to create a small amount of jet thrust to lower cooling system drag. This was key to the Mustang’s aerodynamic performance but is not even described properly.
This book also suffers by comparison because I had just read 'Mustang- the untold story’ by Matthew Willis- a must-read if want to understand the origins of the Mustang (Allison engine) and ‘Rolls Royce and the Mustang’ by David Birch (Rolls Royce Heritage Society)- a must, if you want to understand how the Merlin ended up in the Mustang and made it the fighter it became.
Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly make errors of designation, calling the Mustang 1, (the British named the aircraft) the P-51A - which it was not, (XP-51 being used as a US designation for two RAF Mustang 1s (Model NA-73) held back for evaluation). The Mustang 1 initial order was the Model NA-73, the follow-on order included changes to make it the NA-83, and the Mustang 1A was the model NA-91.
The British dealt directly with North American and paid to have the Mustang developed. The development of the prototype, and Mustang 1 and 1a versions did not involve the US military (Wright Field) at all, hence the correct designations for all early aircraft are the British ones.
The NA-91 was again developed for the RAF, but the US Army retained 57 of the 200 ordered by the RAF and designated them P-51 (no ‘A’) and converted most into the P-51-2/F-6A tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The NA-97 was the first aircraft ordered by the USAAC for US use as dive bomber (designated A-36) and the NA-99 was then developed for the USAAC and finally designated P-51A (Mustang II by the RAF.)
They then claim on page 45 that in the Battle of Britain, the “The British were better pilots” when in fact, the Germans were generally much more experienced and had better tactics that cost the RAF dearly in the early parts of the battle. A number of Luftwaffe pilots were very experienced, having flown in the Spanish civil war and then in France. British pilots, outnumbered and incredibly brave, caught up quickly and abandoned outdated tactics like Vic formations, but to say they were 'better' this early in the war denies reality.
The authors then repeat a famously misunderstood event, when they describe the dramatic Uxbridge bunker scene where Churchill asks AVM Keith Park, OC of 11 Group what reserves there are, and Park replies: 'There are none'. He is of course referring only to 11 Group, as there were plenty of reserves in 10 and 12 groups waiting to head into battle. This is just sloppy research.
Along the way they get the ranks of key British officers wrong. There is no -(lowercase) 'chief air marshal'. That would be like saying a 'general-lieutenant' instead of Lieutenant General for a US officer. The rank is Air Chief Marshal...
In describing the Battle of Britain, on page 49, they make the bizarre claim that "The real hero of the engagement was a 1,640-pound liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine-the Rolls Royce Merlin 61"
The only problem was that the Merlin 61 didn't exist in 1940 when the Battle of Britain was being fought. Earlier Merlin variants like the Mk III, fitted to Hurricanes and Spitfires saw the RAF through that historic engagement.
When they do describe the Merlin 60 series, they again get the model number wrong, and use a mystifying title “Turbine like a typhoon" for the chapter which is nonsensical. Mechanically driven superchargers as in the Merlin, do not have turbines. Only turbo-superchargers, driven by exhaust gases (as in the P-38/P-47) have turbines. The production Merlin Spitfires or Mustangs never had a turbo-supercharger. They then oddly, compare an aircraft engine to a ship engine, then to a car engine describing how the Merlin 'shrieked at 3,000 rpm'. (I have heard many Merlins and have yet to hear one shriek-rather they growl).
They could have made a much more relevant point by simply contrasting car engines that make peak power between 6 and 8,000rpm (depending on the car) where the Merlin made peak power at just 3,000rpm. This is a much clearer contrast of the differences between aircraft and car engines.
When they correctly mention the Merlin 61, which was developed in 1941, they completely fail to describe in anything but passing detail, the creation of the Merlin 60/70 series and its defining aspect, the supercharging system, mentioning its developer, Stanley Hooker only in passing. The 60 series arrived after Hooker took the genius approach of placing the compressors in series, and adding an intercooler to lower charge inlet temperatures and so allow higher boost and therefore power, creating a world-leading, compact, two-speed, two-stage supercharging system. This was THE pivotal development that allowed the Merlin 60 /70 and the equivalent US Packard (licence built) Merlin V-1650 series to fly and fight at the heights needed later to escort US bombers.
On the same page, to give a parallel, they refer to Craig Breedlove, an American who briefly held land speed records in the 1960s and of whom, few people today would have any awareness.
Then on page 63, they describe the British Mustang X test aircraft as ‘Merlin 61 being fitted to a P-51A body’. This never happened. The engine was a Merlin 65 (not 61) and the aircraft a Mustang I, not a P-51A (see earlier model details).
They then compare this transformation to a Jarvik-7 artificial heart, something pioneered in 1982. Absolutely bizarre. A heart is more comparable to a fuel pump where an engine compares better to muscle. Either way, the comparison is utterly pointless and nonsensical. Maybe they are doing product placement?
Along the way they completely leave out the key role that Brig Gen William Kepner had in forcing the manufacturers to put extra fuel in the Mustang and instead credit his boss, Maj Gen Barney Giles. Wright Field actually threatened to prefer charges against Kepner for "interfering with the specifications of an airplane" for his efforts to put more fuel in the P-51. (This is described in detail in Geoffrey Perret's Winged Victory (p-261-270)
The coup de grâce is a picture in the illustrated section, of what the authors claim is a Messerschmitt Me-109. In fact, it is Hispano Aviacion HA-1112 Buchon built in 1954 and powered by-you guessed it- a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine. Facepalm!
Who proofread this book? Certainly no one with any knowledge of historical aviation, much like the authors. The child's drawing on the back cover nicely illustrates the quality of information contained in this book. I wish I could get my money back...
If you want to be misled, confused, led up the wrong path and given an extremely fuzzy presentation of the development of the Mustang, then this is the book for you… This book is so bad I had to force myself to finish it.
If I could give it minus stars, I would…
If you are going to write about what is, along with the Spitfire, the most recognised fighter aircraft of World War II, you had better get your research right. While this book contains some interesting biographical data about designer Edgar Schmued, and other key figures like Tommy Hitchcock, it absolutely misses or completely misstates, key developments around how the Mustang came to be developed into the Rolls Royce Mustang X and then Merlin engined P-51B and D.
I got just 37 pages in before I found a compete misstating of air flow around a wing. The authors explain that lift is created "when the air under the wing passes more quickly and air moving over the top moves more slowly" This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of how a wing works. They then explain how the Mustang’s laminar flow wing was teardrop shaped, which is complete nonsense.
On the same page they describe a ‘Meredith radiator’ when in fact F.W Meredith at the RAE made key discoveries in ducted flow and described how radiator ducts can be designed to create a small amount of jet thrust to lower cooling system drag. This was key to the Mustang’s aerodynamic performance but is not even described properly.
This book also suffers by comparison because I had just read 'Mustang- the untold story’ by Matthew Willis- a must-read if want to understand the origins of the Mustang (Allison engine) and ‘Rolls Royce and the Mustang’ by David Birch (Rolls Royce Heritage Society)- a must, if you want to understand how the Merlin ended up in the Mustang and made it the fighter it became.
Throughout the book, the authors repeatedly make errors of designation, calling the Mustang 1, (the British named the aircraft) the P-51A - which it was not, (XP-51 being used as a US designation for two RAF Mustang 1s (Model NA-73) held back for evaluation). The Mustang 1 initial order was the Model NA-73, the follow-on order included changes to make it the NA-83, and the Mustang 1A was the model NA-91.
The British dealt directly with North American and paid to have the Mustang developed. The development of the prototype, and Mustang 1 and 1a versions did not involve the US military (Wright Field) at all, hence the correct designations for all early aircraft are the British ones.
The NA-91 was again developed for the RAF, but the US Army retained 57 of the 200 ordered by the RAF and designated them P-51 (no ‘A’) and converted most into the P-51-2/F-6A tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The NA-97 was the first aircraft ordered by the USAAC for US use as dive bomber (designated A-36) and the NA-99 was then developed for the USAAC and finally designated P-51A (Mustang II by the RAF.)
They then claim on page 45 that in the Battle of Britain, the “The British were better pilots” when in fact, the Germans were generally much more experienced and had better tactics that cost the RAF dearly in the early parts of the battle. A number of Luftwaffe pilots were very experienced, having flown in the Spanish civil war and then in France. British pilots, outnumbered and incredibly brave, caught up quickly and abandoned outdated tactics like Vic formations, but to say they were 'better' this early in the war denies reality.
The authors then repeat a famously misunderstood event, when they describe the dramatic Uxbridge bunker scene where Churchill asks AVM Keith Park, OC of 11 Group what reserves there are, and Park replies: 'There are none'. He is of course referring only to 11 Group, as there were plenty of reserves in 10 and 12 groups waiting to head into battle. This is just sloppy research.
Along the way they get the ranks of key British officers wrong. There is no -(lowercase) 'chief air marshal'. That would be like saying a 'general-lieutenant' instead of Lieutenant General for a US officer. The rank is Air Chief Marshal...
In describing the Battle of Britain, on page 49, they make the bizarre claim that "The real hero of the engagement was a 1,640-pound liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine-the Rolls Royce Merlin 61"
The only problem was that the Merlin 61 didn't exist in 1940 when the Battle of Britain was being fought. Earlier Merlin variants like the Mk III, fitted to Hurricanes and Spitfires saw the RAF through that historic engagement.
When they do describe the Merlin 60 series, they again get the model number wrong, and use a mystifying title “Turbine like a typhoon" for the chapter which is nonsensical. Mechanically driven superchargers as in the Merlin, do not have turbines. Only turbo-superchargers, driven by exhaust gases (as in the P-38/P-47) have turbines. The production Merlin Spitfires or Mustangs never had a turbo-supercharger. They then oddly, compare an aircraft engine to a ship engine, then to a car engine describing how the Merlin 'shrieked at 3,000 rpm'. (I have heard many Merlins and have yet to hear one shriek-rather they growl).
They could have made a much more relevant point by simply contrasting car engines that make peak power between 6 and 8,000rpm (depending on the car) where the Merlin made peak power at just 3,000rpm. This is a much clearer contrast of the differences between aircraft and car engines.
When they correctly mention the Merlin 61, which was developed in 1941, they completely fail to describe in anything but passing detail, the creation of the Merlin 60/70 series and its defining aspect, the supercharging system, mentioning its developer, Stanley Hooker only in passing. The 60 series arrived after Hooker took the genius approach of placing the compressors in series, and adding an intercooler to lower charge inlet temperatures and so allow higher boost and therefore power, creating a world-leading, compact, two-speed, two-stage supercharging system. This was THE pivotal development that allowed the Merlin 60 /70 and the equivalent US Packard (licence built) Merlin V-1650 series to fly and fight at the heights needed later to escort US bombers.
On the same page, to give a parallel, they refer to Craig Breedlove, an American who briefly held land speed records in the 1960s and of whom, few people today would have any awareness.
Then on page 63, they describe the British Mustang X test aircraft as ‘Merlin 61 being fitted to a P-51A body’. This never happened. The engine was a Merlin 65 (not 61) and the aircraft a Mustang I, not a P-51A (see earlier model details).
They then compare this transformation to a Jarvik-7 artificial heart, something pioneered in 1982. Absolutely bizarre. A heart is more comparable to a fuel pump where an engine compares better to muscle. Either way, the comparison is utterly pointless and nonsensical. Maybe they are doing product placement?
Along the way they completely leave out the key role that Brig Gen William Kepner had in forcing the manufacturers to put extra fuel in the Mustang and instead credit his boss, Maj Gen Barney Giles. Wright Field actually threatened to prefer charges against Kepner for "interfering with the specifications of an airplane" for his efforts to put more fuel in the P-51. (This is described in detail in Geoffrey Perret's Winged Victory (p-261-270)
The coup de grâce is a picture in the illustrated section, of what the authors claim is a Messerschmitt Me-109. In fact, it is Hispano Aviacion HA-1112 Buchon built in 1954 and powered by-you guessed it- a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine. Facepalm!
Who proofread this book? Certainly no one with any knowledge of historical aviation, much like the authors. The child's drawing on the back cover nicely illustrates the quality of information contained in this book. I wish I could get my money back...
If you want to be misled, confused, led up the wrong path and given an extremely fuzzy presentation of the development of the Mustang, then this is the book for you… This book is so bad I had to force myself to finish it.
If I could give it minus stars, I would…
June 19, 2024
I liked the content of the book. I had a lot of fun Googling the real life people and seeing their pictures. Imagine my surprise when there's an entire appendix just of pictures and bios of these guys at the very end. Pictures would have made more sense to me in the text in which you're getting the physical description of them.
Also, I would have liked a lot more information on the Tuskegee Airmen. The book spends a great deal of time telling the story of how the P-51 was overlooked and tossed aside as inferior. This would have been great to explore how the Mustang and Black pilots rose up together to prove their worth, but it only mentions them in a few places.
The book is interesting but it really needed another editing pass. It feels like a second draft. It skips around in time and place - one paragraph is in 1944, the next is 1945, and then back again to 1944. This book has a huge problem with missing punctuation and run on sentences. Some paragraphs are entire, breathless, run on sentences. Many proper nouns aren't capitalized.
Also, I would have liked a lot more information on the Tuskegee Airmen. The book spends a great deal of time telling the story of how the P-51 was overlooked and tossed aside as inferior. This would have been great to explore how the Mustang and Black pilots rose up together to prove their worth, but it only mentions them in a few places.
The book is interesting but it really needed another editing pass. It feels like a second draft. It skips around in time and place - one paragraph is in 1944, the next is 1945, and then back again to 1944. This book has a huge problem with missing punctuation and run on sentences. Some paragraphs are entire, breathless, run on sentences. Many proper nouns aren't capitalized.
May 24, 2023
Outstanding true story of WW2. It's a great addition to increase one's knowledge of how the allies FINALLY developed a better airplane to the Germans' and subsequently gained air superiority in 1944!! This mighty aircraft (the P51 Mustang with a Merlin Rolls Royce engine) was the first fighter that the allies had that could allow the protection of the strategic bombing of Germany all the way to the targets and back. It also made possible the invasion of France on D-Day and the destruction of Germany's Luftwaffe, well as oil, airplane, gas, etc., production which had supported Hitler's war machine.
August 9, 2023
Some good detail but a trial at times to read - repetitive phrasing, extraneous information that seems designed merely to bulk out the book, occasional purple prose, exaggerated adjectives (planes don't fly at "laser speed" no matter how much one is trying to impress their readers), statements that cry out for expanded follow-up, or are plain misleading. (The Horten 229 never saw combat though one might think it did the way it is mentioned.) High hopes for this but ultimately disappointed and damned close to DNF.
October 26, 2023
I wondered how you could write a book about the building of an airplane and still keep it interesting. David White managed that. We learn about all the various streams of history that flowed into the river of the P51, each chapter interesting in its own right, but never too much information. I finished the book reluctantly, having enjoyed the reading. I do wish there was an additional chapter on what happened to the P51 after the war -- when did they go out of US inventory, who bought surplus planes, when were the last P51s used in some nation's fighter inventory.
September 27, 2024
This was a great story of one of the fantastic planes of history. It was also somewhat a story of WWII and some of the people and pilots involved with the P-51.
What interesting to me was that there was bias and corruption on the US side that kept the Mustang out of the air and war for years. Because of that many men died and the war lasted longer.
The P-51 allowed the allied bombers to reach targets far within Germany without extreme losses from the German air force. In that sense, the P-51 was a major contributor to winning the war in Europe.
What interesting to me was that there was bias and corruption on the US side that kept the Mustang out of the air and war for years. Because of that many men died and the war lasted longer.
The P-51 allowed the allied bombers to reach targets far within Germany without extreme losses from the German air force. In that sense, the P-51 was a major contributor to winning the war in Europe.
January 12, 2026
Design Brilliance and Lethal Execution
The authors present a sophisticated story that provides a nuanced view of the development of the P-51 fighter. It highlights the engineering excellence of the American development team.
The development of the P-51 faced significant opposition from some insiders in the Air Force. However, it became clear that a long-range fighter was essential to protect the Air Force's bombing campaign over Germany. The high rate of bomber losses emphasized the need for increased protection during these long-range missions.
The P-51 played a crucial role as an escort over Germany, which significantly accelerated the end of the air war in that region during World War II.
The authors present a sophisticated story that provides a nuanced view of the development of the P-51 fighter. It highlights the engineering excellence of the American development team.
The development of the P-51 faced significant opposition from some insiders in the Air Force. However, it became clear that a long-range fighter was essential to protect the Air Force's bombing campaign over Germany. The high rate of bomber losses emphasized the need for increased protection during these long-range missions.
The P-51 played a crucial role as an escort over Germany, which significantly accelerated the end of the air war in that region during World War II.
March 7, 2024
A really good book on the creation of the P-51 Mustang and how it was to combat the German Luftwaffe. Here a plane was needed in the skies of Europe to protect the bombers and to fight off the German fighters. A good book into the design of the plane and the engines, just everything that went into it, and how the plane was a huge game changer for the Allies. A really good book. I received this book from Netgalley.com
January 19, 2026
I enjoyed the history of the P-51’s development. There are also good accounts of war stories that were entertaining. The end of the book seemed to veer away from being specific to the P-51 and more to general history of the end of WWII. The last chapter is a little abrupt, but did wrap up the lives of the major people introduced in the book nicely.
January 2, 2023
Exciting, true story
This is a very well written and well researched story about the P 51 Mustang. The authors expose the corruption that caused the delay in getting this magnificent plane in the air.
Read it! You will enjoy.
This is a very well written and well researched story about the P 51 Mustang. The authors expose the corruption that caused the delay in getting this magnificent plane in the air.
Read it! You will enjoy.
January 31, 2023
A well written book on the evolution of the Army Air Force and particularly the P51 during the second world war. It is amazing to me the number of people that died and the number of planes that were destroyed. It is a history we should never forget.
May 16, 2023
A magnificent confection of the improbable story of the P-51 Mustang fighter against the backdrop of World War II in Europe. I highly recommend Wings of War. The book is artfully written and conscientiously researched. Bravo to the Whites, Margaret and David, a married couple writing team!
June 26, 2023
good writing, research, well organized
More thorough research on the design, testing, and procurement of the P51 than any other resource I have read. The authors transmit information in an engaging manner. It was hard to put the book down.
More thorough research on the design, testing, and procurement of the P51 than any other resource I have read. The authors transmit information in an engaging manner. It was hard to put the book down.
January 11, 2024
outstanding
Well written. Almost like reading a novel. Made me feel like taking a ride in one. I would call this a creative historical novel, but it is actually a documentary. Well done.
Well written. Almost like reading a novel. Made me feel like taking a ride in one. I would call this a creative historical novel, but it is actually a documentary. Well done.
August 7, 2025
This is a story that does not get enough attention. How the Mustang became a war winning weapon, why it was slow to be accepted or its need recognized and how two allies agreed to put a British engine in a US plane.
December 15, 2023
Audiobook yanked back at 96% but I'm calling it now. I'll try to finish the last 20min when I get it back
September 13, 2024
Great look at the history of a pivotal aircraft.
September 14, 2025
Loved this story even though the writing could have been a little better.
November 29, 2025
Very good book, interesting story about the terrible politics of military procurement. Well worth the time. Thanks
January 15, 2023
If you've never been the Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force in Pooler, GA, near Savannah, I highly recommend. Walking through the exhibits there, you will learn everything you think you'd ever need to know about the Army Air Forces in WWII and bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, of which there is an awe-inspiring specimen currently in the process of full restoration. You will also learn about the fighter planes that accompanied the bombers, including the P-51 Mustang but also many other models. To my recollection, there is not much in the descriptions to distinguish the various fighters, at least in terms of utility. In the gift shop, you can find a model of a Mustang if you look hard enough, but it is among other souvenirs and dwarfed in representation by the B-17.
However, what David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White do in this captivatingly written narrative nonfiction account, is convince any reasonable reader of the superiority of the Mustang above its peers. Equipped with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, the Mustang, with its capabilities in altitude, speed, and range, allowed for success of bombing campaigns deep within Germany that without it would have been utter failures in the grand scheme of the war.
The book is told in three parts, each with a separate protagonist (a "believer") at its center. Part I tells the tale of the invention of the Mustang by Edgar Schmued and weaves Schmued's story into the overall history of aviation. While some readers may be familiar with this larger history, to most the level of detail is necessary to convey how flight evolved, at lighting speed, from the first successful plane of the Wright brothers (the longest flight of which covered a mere 852 feet) to the Mustang, which was able to fly from England deep into Germany with the speed and maneuverability of a fierce fighter. Without this background, can we truly appreciate what made the Mustang stand out and how miraculous its creation was?
Part II centers around Tommy Hitchcock, a fascinating character in his own right, whose daughter Louise both sat for interviews and provided Tommy’s correspondence for use by the authors. Again, there are likely history (and Polo) buffs who are familiar with Hitchcock’s story. He was certainly a celebrity in his time. However, the greater context of his life, including his influence in society, adds necessary color to the tale of his—astonishingly necessary—perseverance in advocating for the Mustang by the Americans in the European theater, particularly as a bomber escort. I found Hitchcock’s story, and the tales of malfeasance and corruption within the military and government, fascinating, frustrating, and thrilling reading.
Part III, the broadest and most far-reaching of the book, identifies its anchor as Don Blakeslee, an ace fighter pilot who flew several missions in a Mustang and advocated for its use, citing its ease of operation, what we might call user-friendliness today, and its astonishing efficacy as a fighter. Once again, the authors call upon historical details that can be found elsewhere, such as the key battles and campaigns in Europe from the preparations for D-Day to the surrender. However, what they do brilliantly is show how indispensable the Mustang was in so many of these key victories for the Allies, a fact that I do not believe is highlighted in many, if any, other mass market texts. It was not present at merely one air campaign or one key offensive that turned the tide. Instead, the authors illustrate the Mustang’s contribution to so many pivotal moments of the last few years of the war that, were the book not impeccably researched, I would almost think it an exaggeration.
In the end I was truly moved. I was convinced beyond any doubt as to how valuable the Mustang was for the Allies’ ultimate victory in Europe. Further, the way that David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White wove the contribution of the plane, and the key figures associated with its flights, into the broader story of the war, was genius.
The authors have accomplished something important, impactful, and beyond impressive. Whether you are a historian, an airplane enthusiast, a lover of fascinating characters and unique personalities, or just someone who appreciates the artful crafting of a narrative, this book is for you. I highly recommend it without reservation.
However, what David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White do in this captivatingly written narrative nonfiction account, is convince any reasonable reader of the superiority of the Mustang above its peers. Equipped with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, the Mustang, with its capabilities in altitude, speed, and range, allowed for success of bombing campaigns deep within Germany that without it would have been utter failures in the grand scheme of the war.
The book is told in three parts, each with a separate protagonist (a "believer") at its center. Part I tells the tale of the invention of the Mustang by Edgar Schmued and weaves Schmued's story into the overall history of aviation. While some readers may be familiar with this larger history, to most the level of detail is necessary to convey how flight evolved, at lighting speed, from the first successful plane of the Wright brothers (the longest flight of which covered a mere 852 feet) to the Mustang, which was able to fly from England deep into Germany with the speed and maneuverability of a fierce fighter. Without this background, can we truly appreciate what made the Mustang stand out and how miraculous its creation was?
Part II centers around Tommy Hitchcock, a fascinating character in his own right, whose daughter Louise both sat for interviews and provided Tommy’s correspondence for use by the authors. Again, there are likely history (and Polo) buffs who are familiar with Hitchcock’s story. He was certainly a celebrity in his time. However, the greater context of his life, including his influence in society, adds necessary color to the tale of his—astonishingly necessary—perseverance in advocating for the Mustang by the Americans in the European theater, particularly as a bomber escort. I found Hitchcock’s story, and the tales of malfeasance and corruption within the military and government, fascinating, frustrating, and thrilling reading.
Part III, the broadest and most far-reaching of the book, identifies its anchor as Don Blakeslee, an ace fighter pilot who flew several missions in a Mustang and advocated for its use, citing its ease of operation, what we might call user-friendliness today, and its astonishing efficacy as a fighter. Once again, the authors call upon historical details that can be found elsewhere, such as the key battles and campaigns in Europe from the preparations for D-Day to the surrender. However, what they do brilliantly is show how indispensable the Mustang was in so many of these key victories for the Allies, a fact that I do not believe is highlighted in many, if any, other mass market texts. It was not present at merely one air campaign or one key offensive that turned the tide. Instead, the authors illustrate the Mustang’s contribution to so many pivotal moments of the last few years of the war that, were the book not impeccably researched, I would almost think it an exaggeration.
In the end I was truly moved. I was convinced beyond any doubt as to how valuable the Mustang was for the Allies’ ultimate victory in Europe. Further, the way that David Fairbank White and Margaret Stanback White wove the contribution of the plane, and the key figures associated with its flights, into the broader story of the war, was genius.
The authors have accomplished something important, impactful, and beyond impressive. Whether you are a historian, an airplane enthusiast, a lover of fascinating characters and unique personalities, or just someone who appreciates the artful crafting of a narrative, this book is for you. I highly recommend it without reservation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews