Right,

Small chunks probably didn't do well in the extremely small NVA passages for 1/2A bladder-pressure-fed combat engines, and that was where our fluster got started. In the ensuing discussion, several raised the possibility that trace remnants of chemicals powerful enough to reduce the crumbs and crusts to usable oil might not be nice to the engines. No facts, numbers, process reviews or anything...

There was also the unmentioned possibility that the engines, almost w/out exception, were not USA manufactured, and were of AAC or ABC construction, which have less tolerance for castor varnish formation. That alone could put a very highly refined and precision-produced engine off song. We recognize that these days, didn't then. The old adage that a few % castor helped stabilize settings for very high performance engines was true for lapped or ringed iron in steel engines, sure enough. But the new metals and fits are a completely different regime, needing a different regimen.

Some people still get very heated when discussing castor-yes or castor-no. Simple factual info doesn't seem to penetrate. You don't fuel a glow engine with kerosene and ether, or a diesel with methanol/nitromethane. The metals and processes for today's state-of-the-art high performance engines may be as vivid a difference. And high performance does not automatically mean extreme RPM and power numbers. There are a few CLPA engines for which the mfrs recommend synthetic oils only, and others who've tried 50/50 synth/castor blends have reported problems until they did as the mfr told them to do in the first place. Then all became sweet...