Question - pixhawk + scale nitro warbird

Ive had experience and success using Pixhawk on multiple platforms that more or less fit general platform definitions.
I developed and applied for utility + design patents for the “APM sarcophagus” , a hard shelled, internally padded/damped container with a robust external I/O terminal strip and integrated GPS/Mag mounting…allowing an APM system to stay integrated as a unit, while easily transferred between vehicle platforms. This prevents damage/wear to the component terminals and their PCBs from frequent plugging/unplugging of cables. Its also crash protection for central APM controllers and local system members.
With successful testing so far, being used on a rover, hexarotor, two helicopters, and a huge cheap fixed-wing foamie…The next in series I am seekig is a vintage framed-up nitro powered scale warbird, built 20 years ago but never used by grandfather.
He was the 1956 US Pac-AF scale world champion, and stopped flying in the early 80s…yet kept building for a bit longer. The aircraft is a midwest kit - a P-39 airacobra, 5 foot wingspan, 60 sized two cycle engine,
I am swapping out the Rossi two cycle for a Saito .56 four cycle engine, and modifying the airframe slightly to accomodate the APM sarcophagus and its satellite sensors/support devices
(airspeed sensor/pedotube, dual battery supplies/regultors, secondary external GPS, etc.)
Having not seen much documentation on APM fixed-wing use with nitro power, much less a framed-up wooden scale model of high calibre, I am throwing this query out there.

Are there any issues that come to mind when you envision APM pixhawk integration into an aircraft like this P-39 using such powerplant, and standard control surface schema + flaps?
Im confident kinks can be worked out per their appearance, but it is wise to at least have such a query as this before execution of work.
Im concerned a bit about vibration, and any changes to gains/settings others experienced with this might suggest prior to setup.
The Saito power I feel is a better profile regarding harmful/negative vibrations to the APM sensor array, than the Rossi two cycle with much higher RPM…at least the waveform/noise of vibrations.
Thank you in advance for any insights or suggestions!

What I am looking at doing next is

Maybe not on topic but I think the Saito .56 might be a bit marginal for the airframe you are using. It won’t develop anywhere near as much power as the Rossi .60. Usually a .90 four stroke is considered a rough equivalent of a .60 two stroke. Warbirds are notoriously difficult to fly anyway, and one with marginal power doubly so.
Interested to hear more about your sarcophagus. Is there more information anywhere?
:wink: Ian

I would also be interested in hearing about that sarcoughagus