About the Hawker Hunters in the game

yo, I got the Hunter F. 58 a couple of months ago and I’ve been loving it ever since. but the fact that it’s the only fun hunter in the game truly saddened me. I have some suggestions that have been on my mind for the longest time.

Hunter F.1 and J34
it’s only somewhat 9.0 worthy if it’s at min fuel, and because of the size of jet maps, i think that min fuel performance basically impractical since you need to conserve fuel like me 163 but you can’t since the life of the hunter is about staying fast. therefore, I think it’s okay if we lower the BR to 8.7

i know it might become the f104a/c for the 7.7s but given the 18 mins fuel, I don’t think it’s gonna be broken like Starfighters in a full downtier.

for the J34 it’s harder to lower the BR since it has a better engine than the F1 and can carry RB24s. the only viable option I can think of is to give it like 8-9 min fuel option since I don’t think it can carry drop tanks

Hunter F.6 and Hunter FGA.9
lowering the BRs for both of these aircraft is out of the question because of their performance and armaments. the FGA.9(like the Swiss F.58) is 290kg lighter(according to WT Wiki) and has a little bit more thrust. I think that giving them their historical brake chute and drop tanks would increase their competitiveness quite a bit(might change the f.6 to the f.6a for that)

Hunter F.58
BR could be raised to 10.0 honestly, full downtiers is straight unfair. my K/D with it is higher than Ariete lololol, especially with the AIM 9J buff. fights better than any of the Jaguars and A7 Corsairs IMO

to add: Hunter F.74 for Britain
plz add this hunter, sits well at 10.3 plus Britain doesn’t have a good 10.0-11.0, only L harriers with their gimmicky thrust vectoring

1 Like

Given their history of being implemented as counterparts to the MiG-17, F-2 Sabre, and CL-13A Mk.5 in the game, they should not be moved to 8.7BR.

1 Like

Also, give the beautiful distinctive ‘blue note’ sound effect for the Hawker Hunters already:


Ohhhh my :O

I see, then the only viable option for Hunter F.1 is to give it a competitive fuel load so that when it reaches the middle of the map it can use its min fuel performance straight at full throttle

wow, I never knew this. they definitely should add this sound

The Folland Gnat is now a better option as counterparts for both Britain and Finland.

Regardless of what their intended role is they both underperform in comparison to the aircraft you have listed.

Where on earth are you talking about?
They were almost equal as long as you don’t try turn fighting, and in fact it worked as really decent counterpart even when the top BR was 9.0BR.

1 Like

You said that because they were added as counterparts to the CL sabres and more they shouldn’t be lowered in BR.

I’m saying that it doesn’t matter what Gaijin intended them to counter because nowadays their performance isn’t 9.0 worthy. Screw their history, they don’t perform well enough for 9.0. They still take until the middle of the map just to get above 1000, and even then whilst they retain energy its because you struggle to make a 4g turn, not because its a good airframe.

1 Like

A late Hunter + SRAAM overhaul is exactly what Britain needs right now. Still very salty Germany got the Hunter Britain has wanted in its TT for years


Compared to aircraft like MiG-17, F-2 Sabre, CL-13A Mk.5, F-40 Sabre, Vautour IIA, Super Mystere B2, Hunter/J34 is pretty decent at its BR. Just because it is a “brick” doesn’t mean that the aircraft is as bad in random battles as you say.

You are exaggerating quite a bit.
Almost every 9.0BR jets can’t go faster as well also, Hunter F.1 can literally pull over 4G on turning when your Hunter F.1 is spaded and has a aced crew, you can pull 8 to 10Gs at 1000-900km/h. Well it’s not really a turn fighter, so it doesn’t really matter at all how much G it can pull. It’s still pretty decent as long as you learn the play style required for Hunter F.1 or J34.

Sounds like it’s just skill issues to me with all your whining.

in real life hunter had an autonomy of 4000 km ! it was no ME163 !

read properly before writing anything