g33,
Your current difficulty is that you haven't gotten the answer you want, so you are going a bit daffy. I said, about six different ways, that it is a bad bargain to latch onto an old windshield strength requirement, and ignore the rest of the aircraft. I hope you got that!
Now, about your slurs, I take exception. I actually went to the trouble of attempting to determine the size of the impacts to frame the "extra" protection that you have become fixated on. The crummy 5% extra for which you allow the rest of the aircraft to be sacrificed. It was data that you could have worked, but instead you put the snivley comment "your figures." You are clearly one of those people who sit on a thought, the one you found somewhere, and just polish that thought up until it shines and shines. Your thought, the prized product of this entire discourse, is that 1.8 Kg is bigger than 1.0 Kg. Nice. Very nice! A little obvious to people who think more often than once a week.
You want the rest of the aircraft, the entire aircraft, except for the windshield and lips of the engine, to go unprotected so that your pet pig can win the beauty contest. For the several people whose tail rotors have been knocked off by birds, and those whose main rotors have been bent or broken by them too, I say:
g33, let us be thankful nobody asked YOU how to make the next generation helicopter!
The European authorities wrote their new regulations, and left you in the cold, but instead protected a new generation of pilot. See para 631:
http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/decision_ED_2003_16_RM.pdf