The Barbie Jet is an overpowered oddity with some excellent design features. But, this extremely innovative jet features an extremely serious design flaw (if it were turned into a full-scale aircraft). Our independent analysis, by aero engineer Joe Wilding and Jim Smith, reveal a litany of serious aerodynamic and structural issues that would curse it, if it were made into a real aircraft.*

*There are no plans to make it into a real aircraft and as a toy it has no safety issues.

“…the aircraft has a glide ratio of 3.0, which is worse than the space shuttle when landing.”

There are two versions of the Barbie Jet. The Mk I first flew in 1999 and featured smaller, wing-mounted engines much like a 737 or A319. The Mk II first flew in 2021 and featured upgraded engines mounted on the aft fuselage, similar to a DC-9 or Gulfstream G-V.

• Mk.I “Airplane”:

Features include a working microphone (great for communicating with ATC), a “magical” food service center, and Real jet sounds!

• Mk.II “Dreamplane”

But wait, there appears to be a (possibly Saudi) knock-off, the “Sweet Holidays Airliner” with a single tail-mounted engine similar to a DC-10, and most like the single-engine PiperJet. This version features a few unique details such as a variable-geometry swing-wing, and a pivoting cockpit canopy for easier pilot egress. This variant didn’t have a successful commercial launch and only a few exist. The last known example was being flown by ‘Pilot Kent’ operating as an overworked smuggler for a “sweet” minor ex Soviet republic airline with a dubious safety record. Previously Kent was an Iranian test pilot, who took the IAIO Qaher-313 on its maiden flight. It is rumoured that Barbie had an affair with Roy Orbison while visiting pre-Revolutionary Iran and Pilot Kent is the son. Judge for yourself.

Wait, do we still say ‘maiden flight’? That’s pretty archaic. Is the pilot or the flight ‘taking’ the aircraft’s virginity, is the aircraft a maiden? All very strange. Is flying sex? Are unflown aircraft InCels? Are museum aircraft post sexual? Or is that mailplanes?

For the rest of this analysis, we will focus on the Mk.II Dreamplane.

First, a 3-view drawing was created to develop and extract all of the critical information needed for performance analysis, such as dimensions and surface areas. This 3-view was generated based on US intelligence photos taken from outside the BarbieLand International Airport fence, and the excellent coverage in the deep dive article from the Feb 2021 issue of Flight International. Scale is hard to determine from photos. A kid’s toy version of the aircraft was used to determine scale, knowing that the Barbie world is 1:6 scale. The toy length of 2.296 inches was used to determine a full-scale aircraft length of 13.78 feet. 

The aircraft has somewhat unique proportions. The overall length and wingspan is similar to a BD-5 Jet. However, the fuselage size and aircraft weight is quite a bit different from that zippy jet which James Bond flew in Octopussy.

Weights

A proprietary statistical weights model was used to estimate the empty weight build-up of the aircraft, as shown in the following table (in pounds):

• These weights seem reasonable. One big advantage of this aircraft is the unusual BMI of the pilot and passengers. A “standard” scaled Barbie passenger (per the FAA and EASA) weighs only 105 lbs. 

• Propulsion
  • The Pinkjet 2000.23 is a highly proprietary engine, and no performance data has been published. However, it is known that the engine is a pure turbo jet, and the performance can be estimated by scaling the engine size and comparing to other turbojet engines of similar performance. The engine is 13.44 inches in diameter (a little less than a GE J85), and this results in an approximate takeoff thrust of 2,050 lb per engine at standard day, sea level conditions. The engine is estimated to weigh 280 lbs dry.
  • With a pure turbojet, it is very hard to be Stage V noise compliant. Therefore it is believed that the Barbie Mk.II Dreamjet uses a Hush-Kit (and yes – I do feel used)
• Fuel system The fuel is contained entirely in the wing. Roughly scaling the wing, and assuming the fuel is contained in the full wing span, between the forward and aft wing spar, the wing can contain roughly 7.5 US gallons per side, or a total of 120 lbs of fuel.
• Airframe
  • To say the fuselage is chunky is a gross understatement, it makes a P-47 look like a Romanian sausage. And size is a mixed blessing for the structural designer. On one hand, the height and width of the fuselage increases the bending stiffness. On the other hand, surface area is not your friend when trying to design a low-weight structure, particularly if it is pressurised. And all good jets are pressurised. 
  • And what about those windows? Wow, they are big and they are going to be heavy, especially when sized to carry pressurisation and bird-strike loads. But wait! The aircraft does not appear to actually have windows, just cutouts. So I guess the window weight is actually zero. Same for the pressurisation system. That is a brilliant minimalist design though there is a minor risk of lateral birdstrikes to passengers’ heads.
  • The blunt aft end of the fuselage is the biggest problem with the Dreamjet. It would produce separated flow and would increase the aircraft drag by 5-10 times compared to a conventional, streamlined jet, making it impractical.
  • Another questionable design feature is the fully opening fuselage. This makes entry and exit convenient, as well as transporting bulky items such as Barbie jet skis. However, it would be a structural and systems nightmare to design a robust door latching mechanism that had to carry all of the fuselage loads.
  • The wing is straight forward. It appears to have an 11% airfoil, which is a good compromise for a medium-speed subsonic jet, considering structural weight, fuel capacity, and aerodynamic drag.
  • The vertical and horizontal tails seem reasonable.
• The horizontal tail winglets are an interesting addition, not often seen on aircraft. Winglets improve aerodynamic efficiency by reducing lift-induced drag. They have a similar effect as higher wingspan, without the downsides of increased span, namely structural weight and ground operations constraints. On a properly designed aircraft, the horizontal tails generally produces very little load in cruise flight. Any negative load produced add to additional wing lift required and is referred to as “trim drag.” The effort to include tail winglets must mean that the aircraft is not balanced well and is indeed producing a lot of down force in cruise flight. On the other hand, details on aircraft sometimes have nothing to do with engineering or efficiency. It is possible the tail winglets flowed from the pen of the designer to compliment the other stunning lines of the Dreamjet.

• Stability and Control
  • The Dreamjet tails were analyzed using a method called “Tail Volume Coefficient”. This calculates the area of the horizontal and vertical tails, multiplied by the distance they are from the wing aerodynamic center. This value is then normalized based on the wing dimensions.
  • The Dreamjet has a Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient of 1.03, and a Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient of .079.Both of these are similar to the statistical values for a jet transport. Therefore the tails seem to be sized well for this type of aircraft. The only concern is the placement of the main landing gear. It is quite far aft on the fuselage and the aircraft would need considerable speed before the horizontal tail could lift the nose for takeoff.
• Performance
  • Wing Loading: The Dreamjet has a wing loading of 68.0 lbs/ft^2, which is similar to other business jets. This would result in a stall speed of 100 knots, reasonable for a jet aircraft.
  • The Thrust/weight ratio is an eye-watering 1.54!!! This is 20% higher than the highest T/W ratio jet in the world, the F-22. This means the Dreamjet could climb to dreamland vertically.
  • Of course the biggest problem with the Dreamjet, and one reason for the high T/W ratio, is that it can carry very little fuel. Assuming an average turbojet fuel consumption of 1.25 lbs fuel per lbs thrust per hour, the Dreamjet could run at full throttle for exactly 1.4 minutes before its fuel was exhausted.
  • Would the F-19 have worked in real life? Find out here.
  • Takeoff: On a normal takeoff, the high T/W ratio would provide blistering performance: a 335 foot ground roll. Even factoring an engine failure during the takeoff roll, the Balance Field Length would be 1,500 feet. Impressive! 
  • Top speed The wetted area of the aircraft and a “clean” jet design would suggest a drag area as low as 1.6 square feet. This could produce a top speed well into the supersonic range, assuming it had enough fuel to accelerate long enough to reach that speed. However, the blunt fuselage it likely increasing the drag area of the aircraft to 15 square feet or more, 10x the ideal value. With this drag, the aircraft could still cruise at a speed around 300 knots, or Mach 0.5. However, the buffeting coming off the ass end of the aircraft would probably not make for the most comfortable ride.
  • Range Although almost everything before this point seems plausible, if not quite exciting, range is where it all falls apart. Let’s look at a climb scenario. You are sitting on the end of the runway. You advance the throttles forward. The 1.5g of acceleration is approaching that of a Formula 1 car. After a few seconds, the aircraft is airborne and the pilot could pull the nose vertical. For here, the aircraft accelerate and climbs like a rocket. Only faster. After 1 minute, the Dreamjet is at 30,000 feet. The pilot can then level out, turn off the fasten seat belt light, and they configure the aircraft for glide mode, because that is the Dreamjet will become a glider in the next 30 seconds. And with the massive airflow separation coming off the fuselage, the aircraft has a glide ratio of 3.0, which is worse than the space shuttle when landing. From 30,000 feet, the plane could glide for about 17 miles. But hopefully the pilot is skilled and can land on the first approach, because there is no fuel for a go around.
  • Summary If you could put a better tailcone on the aircraft to reduce drag, and you and your closest friend weighed an unchanging 105 lbs, the Barbie Mk.II could be a dream jet. And I am kind of fond of the pink colour and sassy pony-tailed Barbie on the tail. 
  • – Joe Wilding

If you enjoy this kind of thing (and we all do) it’s time to pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2

We also sought the wisdom of Jim Smith

The Barbie Jet – Hot or not?

By Jim Smith

I have to say I really like the Barbie Jet. After all, one can never start too early in encouraging the next generation to take an interest in owning an entry level executive jet.

Why do I suggest this is an entry-level executive jet? Well, single-pilot operation plus generously spaced accommodation for two passengers is one aspect of this, as are the small rear-mounted jet engines, typical of this class of aircraft.

In fact, the appearance of the aircraft strongly suggests that the folks at Mattel have been looking for inspiration in the slightly more obscure end of this market, since, rather than the popular Citation Jet series, the Barbie Jet appears to have a very close relation in the form of the Swearingen SJ 30. Only 8 of these were built, one of which graces a scrapyard in Brisbane.

This aircraft so closely resembles the Barbie Jet, that there is little doubt that it is one of the parents of that aircraft. The Brisbane aircraft lacks its tailplane, but the configurations of the SJ 30 and the Barbie Jet are similar to the larger Sino Swearingen SJ-30-2 photographed at Farnborough by Dr Ron Smith, which shares the tailplane arrangement of both.

Of course, the element which sets the Barbie Jet apart from the SJ 30 is the large fuselage, and the loading arrangements, which take the freight door in a new direction. The large fuselage strongly suggests that the Barbie Jet is, in effect, the SJ 30-Beluga, with a capacious fuselage providing Barbie and Ken with luxurious accommodation, as well as offering the manufacturer a second line of business in supplying the urgent package-delivery trade.

Photo: Airbus Beluga

This impression is heightened by the colour scheme, which draws heavily on the signature colour used first by Clay Lacy for his Mustang, and later, by the FedEx air freight business.

Photo: Clay Lacy’s Mustang at the Compton Air Show

What about performance? Well, the low-powered small-business jets generally offer modest, but effective, performance, with budget operation enhanced by only requiring a single pilot. Typical runway requirements are about 1000 m, with payload-range dependent on aircraft size and weight. The performance of the Barbie Jet will be somewhat reduced by additional fuselage drag compared to competitors, which is likely to impact on cruise speed, take-off distance and range. Some small benefit in range may be obtained through the use of winglets.

One area of concern may be the effect of the large fuselage on behaviour at low speed. T-tail aircraft are known to be liable to experience handling difficulties at low speed, as the control and stability of the aircraft may be reduced as the tailplane is affected by wing and fuselage flows. The Barbie Jet is likely to require some control system assistance, such as a stick pusher, at low speeds. However, as the design is not strictly competing in the commercial airliner market, the penalty of some flight limitations, and a slightly higher approach speed, may be acceptable.

Hot or not? Always dependent on personal taste, but I’d suggest at least comfortably warm.

Running the Hush-Kit site takes a lot of effort. If you wish to see this site carry on please consider making a small (or large) donation. Recommended donation £12.00. Every donation is greatly received. Donate here and be part of our story. (In case my WordPress skills are not good enough and this link won’t work, please use the button below and to the right)