I agree it looks handsome with those P2s, but I'm one of the odd ones out on this forum who believes that dynamics are more important than aesthetics.
Those P2s are the 39cm a-c length intended for frames (from 1993 and earlier) that were not designed for suspension forks. So my question would be whether the Clark Kent was designed for suspension forks. I would guess it was, in which case the P2s would be too short and would give over-lively handling.
As you already have it ready, I would suggest that you assess the geometry by measuring the height of each axle and the height of the bb centre to find the bb drop.
You can be fairly confident that the frame would have been designed for a bb drop (sagged) of c30mm. Say the actual bb drop with that fork was 40mm - the logic then is that as the bb drop is 10mm over, and as the bb is about 40% of the way from the back axle to the front axle, the fork must be c2.5cm too short (i.e., 10mm divided by 40%).
If so, that would indicate that the frame was suspension-adjusted and was designed for a fork of 41.5cm sagged or roughly 43cm static.