PANews,
I had to look carefully at the EC web page and the FAA site for the Type Certificate Data Sheet to see that there really is no EC145, there is the BK-117 C-2, which is called the EC 145. It is the same helo, with a greatly grandfathered set of design and safety rules, fundamentally no different than the original BK-117.
Retrofitting the strength of the basic structure is nearly impossible, and always impractical. The way it is expressed in FAR/JAR is the number of G's the airframe must withstand when dropped, and there is no way to beef up a system without total redesign. You have to literally beef up every part, every frame, clip and perhaps every rivet in the structure. That is why the 225 begs off modern crashworthiness - the cost and weight penalties are awesome. I would imagine that the redesign and requalification of the fuselage of a part 29 aircraft could easily be 150 to 200 million dollars, all of whch has to be recouped with an increase in sales price. It is far easier to change the name and the paint job, and pray nobody actually reads pprune.
This is not to say that the aircraft is in any way unsafe. It does say it is less safe, as an absolute fact, than a newer design.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the FAA/JAA officials were made to require that the certification basis of the aircraft be made part of the adverts and brochures, like cigarette ads.
The New Belchfire 277X, the finest flying machine ever produced*
*actually it is a retreaded repainted 1968 model, with steel dashboard and no seatbelts, caveat emptor!