In this wiki article, V-1 flying bomb - Wikipedia, (Assessment Section). It says the Allies lost 351 aircraft intercepting V1 flying bombs. My question is why were the loses so high ? Is not like the were V1s shooting back.
It might not be a complete explanation, but earlier in the article it says this:
I believe the standard method that was evolved for taking out a V1 was to fly very close alongside it (when over an unpopulated area) and flip the end of the V1’s wing upward by touching it with one’s own wing. This would fairly reliably destabilize the doodlebug’s flight, and cause it to crash. I think you can probably see why this took great skill, and was not very safe for the pilot, either.
Its rather amazing that they didn’t jury rig some safe way to do it.
Drop some sort of weighted bolo over the V1’s wing, maybe a large magnet and weight.
Well, you would still have to fly very close to it, and I am not sure how you could drop such a thing from a fighter (and a bomber probably would not be maneuverable enough). If you were matching speed just above it, you would not be able to see where the damn thing was.
Doodlebugs moved pretty slowly by aircraft standards, I believe, and flipping them, despite everything, was probably a lot easier and safer than shooting down German bombers with fighter escorts, which was what the British pilots had been used to doing.
I do not think the period through which V1s were in use was all that long. If it had been longer, maybe they would have developed some special technology for dealing with them. Instead, first the Germans went to V2s (which you could not do anything about), and then the war ended.
They did. Less than 300 V1s were brought down by 2,000 barrage balloons.
It was the opposite: most other planes could only catch up to them by diving from above.
That figure needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. The table is taken from a book quoting a report prepared by Marshall’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence in late '44 - at which point a lot of the numbers would be “guesstimates”. German figures were not certainly not available and - from the Wiki article itself - the report seems to be a bit of special pleading against manned bombers.
On the “Aircraft Lost” figure note that this is not just aircraft “intercepting V1 flying bombs” it is “Allied Air Effort” which would include the bombing of Peenemunde, the factories, the storage facilities, and the launch sites. You can see it is not just fighter losses as it says 805 men were lost with 351 aircraft - 2.3 aircrew per aircraft. Seeing as the interceptor with the largest crew was the two seater Mosquito and many (most) of the interceptors were single seat fighters it’s pretty obvious some of the losses must have been bombers.
What I can’t find online is first hand source for air operations and losses in 1944 but the basic figure of 44770 sorties in 2 3/4 months just against V1’s looks awfully high - thats 539 each and every day.
They wouldn’t touch the wing of the V1. The plane would fly with it’s wingtip close by and slightly underneath and allow the change in air pressure and wing tip vortex to upset the V1 as it’s crude control system attempted to correct. Don’t know how many times this was successfully used.
I’m reminded of a Bob Stevens cartoon. The fighter pilot is behind a V1. He thinks, ‘What an easy target! I’ll just get nice and close, and…’
I read one account of shooting a V1 that resulted not in the loss of the aircraft but the burning off of every scrap of paint on its outside! I think it might have been the late Raymond Baxter (of Uk show Tomorrows world) who’s wing man had the distinction of being probably the only spit pilot to shoot at a V2, which suddenly erupted out of a wood as they flew over, he let off a burst as it went past! Baxter said he was rather glad it didn’t go off.
Probably not every bit of paint. Control surfaces were fabric. 
Yeah, the Brits tended to use powerful Typhoon and Tempest aircraft for chasing V1s.
Ah yes indeed, but Mosquitoes were used too…which i think was all wood even the control surfaces, so not totally imposable , but maybe improbable. One might excuse a little exaggeration after stepping out of a crispy fried plane anyway!
Not so often by then - ISTR a story from earlier in the war when someone was enjoying the increased manouevrability his metal-aileroned Hurricane allowed him in a squadron still mainly equipped with the older model and being asked to tone it down a bit as his teammates couldn’t keep up: “we haven’t all got metal ailerons!”. 
I don’t have time to pull out my Hurricane book, but I don’t think this is correct. AFAIK, the Hurricane was always equipped with fabric-covered ailerons.
However, early models had fabric-covered wings. (The fuselage aft of the cockpit was fabric-covered.)
I stand to be corrected however, if you can find a citation.
RAF photo of a Tempest trying to catch a V-1.
(from Air War Against Hitler’s Germany)
Never mind photos, here’s some moving pictchas!
BTW if it isn’t clear, the vast majority of V1s brought down by aircraft were shot down. The number brought down by the wing manouever described earlier was comparitively tiny.
Also, take a look at some of the impacts of the V1 with the ground in that vid. They were massive explosions.
Try this discussion from about post #10 onwards. I am not a participant.
I wonder what the cut off time for the cameras running is? Do they only run when the guns are firing?.. I’m amazed how tenacious the attacks are. On might think once the thing was hit it wasn’t going where it was aimed and let it go…
You can take this with a whole shaker full of salt if you like but I think I recall the gun trigger starting and running the camera when only partially depressed. I just did a quick Google on this though and couldn’t find a cite, so it’s just my memory at work here.