# 40's Fleet Wing?



## Busher (Jun 12, 2009)

Hi, I picked this up recently and would appreciate any info on it.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on Fleet Wings that I can find.  It looks almost identical to a picture of a '41 Roadmaster I saw.  It looks to be all original except for maybe the grips and the rear reflector.

Thanks in advance for any help


----------



## Strings-n-Spokes (Jun 12, 2009)

*fleetwing*

Hi Busher welcome to the Cabe.

Roadmasters and your Fleet Wing were both made by the Cleveland Welding Company or CWC as it often refered to as in this forum.

Cleveland Welding made bikes for many companies -Western Flyers , Hawthornes etc.

I am sure someone will be along to inform you on some of the specifics concerning your bike, which is AWSOME btw.

hope this helps


----------



## ram.1950 (Jun 12, 2009)

*40s Fleetwing*

DO NOT get rid of that bike! I can't date it but that's definitely a CWC product with the "Cadillac Of Springers" the world famous SHOCKMASTER! This is the type of bike I aspire to find - Post War w/ the shockmaster springer & struts that bend out away from the sides, tanker, rack, original paint. IF you decide to sell it let ME know first - I'm the shockmasters biggest fan. If you even think about parting this out there will be a contract put out on you. Fabulous!


----------



## AntonyR (Jun 13, 2009)

It's a '49 at the earliest, probably around '50 or so. The Shockmaster's lower truss rods that bow out like that came out in '49(for 'safety'), which is the biggest clue as far as aging the bike.


----------



## Herman (Jun 13, 2009)

Nice bike!!! , post the serial number and I'm sure Dr. Phil can pinpoint the exact year


----------



## ram.1950 (Jun 13, 2009)

*AntonyR Shockmaster?*

Hey! You seem to know something about the CWC shockmaster springer. I figured the ones with the straight lower truss rods were the earlier version, but what I'm curious about are the ones that are bowed. Some are straight out from the sides while others face forward. Do you know when each of them was used? I've seen the ones that face forward on both girl's & boy's bikes so I'm assuming it's not a  gender issue - what is it? Thanks.


----------



## wave1960 (Jun 13, 2009)

*Serial number CWC*

CWC serial numbers researched on this site. Mine was followed by "53" and so far that is what I am going with. Hiawatha Headbadge and same springer.


----------



## BWbiker (Jun 13, 2009)

*Fleetwing ...*

Roadmaster did use that reflector prewar. Brad


----------



## AntonyR (Jun 13, 2009)

ram.1950 said:


> Hey! You seem to know something about the CWC shockmaster springer. I figured the ones with the straight lower truss rods were the earlier version, but what I'm curious about are the ones that are bowed. Some are straight out from the sides while others face forward. Do you know when each of them was used? I've seen the ones that face forward on both girl's & boy's bikes so I'm assuming it's not a  gender issue - what is it? Thanks.



There are 3 definite styles of Shockmaster through the years- The earliest(late '30s) that had hollow, individually pivoting 
fork tubes- then late '39ish, the fork was a single cast piece that was more stable, with a swan crown. Then post-war, the fork casting was even stronger, but with an ugly crown and round pivot bolts instead of the early straight edged. Prewar, both the lower struts and springs were straight, post-war the springs were wider in the center, and the struts finally became safety bumpers. Unfortunately the Shockmaster has a weak spot: the fender attachment hole. It's fairly common for the lower casting to break right in the middle, where the hole goes through the casting. The only design flaw that I know of if you beat on it like most boys usually did. Bitchen springer. Best I've found. Sadly it isn't meant for speed or a lot of weight. Above 40mph it gets a little bouncy on my Whizzer.:eek:


----------



## AntonyR (Jun 13, 2009)

Oh sorry. As far as the bumpers that face forward, I have no idea what those are about or the years produced. I just figured people took it upon themselves and bent them forward.


----------



## Strings-n-Spokes (Jun 14, 2009)

*Shockedmaster*

I have three of the later version of that springer and one is broken at the fender mounting hole just like you mentioned, Antony.  I have ridden that way quite a bit and it does not seem to compromise the working of the springer.  Great info Antony!


----------



## AntonyR (Jun 14, 2009)

Yeah, just think of it as newly independent suspension....


----------



## RMS37 (Jun 14, 2009)

Hi

Without a serial number I would peg the bike between 1950 and 1953 based on the " bumper" truss rods. 

Here are some dates and information on the CWC Shockmaster forks.

The patent for the original prewar shockmaster was filed on April 27, 1938. It is a sprung version of the earlier Swan truss fork which was designed in 1936 and offered on deluxe CWC models beginning with the 1937 line. The Swan truss fork continued in production through early 1942. 

The prewar shockmaster was probably available in late 1938 but is not shown in the catalog until 1939. It featured a drop forged fork crown and tubular legs. There are several small modifications that were made to the fork during its production run (late 1938-early 1942) the most notable was the addition of a mounting boss for the headlight in 1940.

In an effort to get more product out quickly when production resumed after the war it appears that the early postwar bikes were simply equipped and that the prewar Shockmaster was dropped from production.  As demand started to subside energy was put on developing the more deluxe models and replacing the prewar shockmaster with an improved unit that could be produced for less.

While the pre and postwar units are hard to tell apart from 25 feet and work on the same basic mechanical principal, the construction of the main fork and crown were changed.  The crown became a less expensive stamping and the fork blades became forgings that required less time to build than the earlier tubular units with the separate welded truss support arms.

I have little practical experience with the postwar units and find it interesting that the units are fragile. Tying the fork blades together at the top should make the unit mechanically superior to the prewar unit.  Apparently that part of the fork need a bit more material. If it does break allowing for “independent suspension” it is mimicking the prewar unit that was designed that way.

The patent filing date for the postwar version of the Shockmaster fork is January 17, 1948. I believe that the fork became available on deluxe CWC bikes sometime during the 1947 Calendar year. This would mean that Late 1945 through 1946 CWC bikes were not available with a springer fork.

The earliest postwar Shockmaster used straight lower truss rods and cylindrical springs without a central bulge, both of these items are similar to those used on the prewar Shockmaster fork.

The truss rods and rack supports were later modified and angled out from the sides of the bike to effect bumpers. This feature change probably dates to late 1949 appears in 1950 ads touted as being present to protect the beautiful finish of the bike when it is laid down, dropped or leaned against a building. Along with this change came the Barrel shaped springs.

While the protruding bumpers protected the safety of the bike finish, they probably did little to protect the rider and probably were a detriment to safety as they could easily snag on something and bring the rider down.

It may be for that reason that beginning with the 1954 Roadmaster catalog the springer truss rods were changed to project forward rather than out to the sides. Obviously they no longer had an arguably functional purpose but were kept bent for aesthetic reasons. Because of the way the ends of the truss rods are formed they cannot be turned from side to the front projection.

The postwar Shockmaster in the final 1954 form seems to have remained in production for at least six years.  It appears in the 1959 catalog but is no longer shown in the 1961 catalog. I don’t have a 60 catalog to know if it was still available that year.


----------



## AntonyR (Jun 14, 2009)

I think it's time you changed your name to Wiki Phil. Well, according to Wiki, I was pretty close on all counts, just from personal experience. Not bad!


----------



## Strings-n-Spokes (Jun 15, 2009)

*... where credit is due.*

Even though it is the name of my Photobucket account,  I would have to say that Phil is Bikepedia


----------



## Johnierw (Jun 30, 2009)

*Serial # check?*

Hi guys!

My son and I found this old dilapidated Fleet Wing in the dump and just wanted to get some more information on her.  SN is 319199  then it says "MOS" 39X28 , it does not have any springs in the front, but it has the rear carrier and the tank with "bell" intact, not tested yet.

I am not a restoration expert, but my son wants to make this a project bike, so I'm wondering how far I should go.  

Thanks All

Johnie


----------

