T-C the question is, did Kasmann read the 'L-F' notation in the original Rechlin Tempest report, & properly footnote it?
Or was it based on remarks by the German test pilot H-W. Lerche in his memoir - which was supported by his flight logbook ?
& if it was duly noted as such, in 1945, & not just 'added' by Kasmann, as 'received knowledge' - it would be of interest..
Since the actual descriptive term 'L-F' was largely a matter of sales hype ( improved drag results notwithstanding),
in period Camm would have no reason to be seen as jumping on the NACA 'bandwagon' & claim 'L-F' too,
even if his NPL/'Hawker high-speed wing' profile clearly does show 'L-F' characteristics..
( & the redesigned P-51H adopted a newer 66-series NACA 'L-F' profile wing, but to seemingly little functional benefit).
As for Tank, he was perhaps, an equally adept a salesman - as he was a designer.. his FW 190 used the same semi-antiquated
high lift, but drag-limited @ high-Mach NACA wing profile - as the USN F4U & F6F, in order to get his heavy machine to 'behave' on the smallest feasible wing area, (& he'd already had to increase it, for series production).
AFAIR, RN test pilot E. Brown found the 'L-F' Supermarine Sea Fang 'unsatisfactory' as a carrier machine,
& accordingly, the Hawker Sea Fury ( ironically also 'L-F') - got its gig.
Brown also noted that while pretty much the same wing - was recycled on the 'lash-up' Attacker jet
(unusually for a jet - it retained the wing armament, & 'tail-dragger' undercart)
- it'd had much needed low-speed lift/control devices added.. ( & that wing was small, area-wise too, which didn't help).
Even so, I don't think it spent much time aboard ship, as those carrier skippers didn't want the paint routinely burned
off their flight decks - by the Attacker's blow-torch jet efflux..
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"