Shaft, there are so may variables that this is tough to answer in a quick post.
Yes some airframes are stronger than others, and there are a whole range of compromises and tradeoffs that go into the design of an aircraft. Military specifications calling for ballistic protection and crash survivability will generally result in beefier, heavier airframes. Aircraft designed to operate aboard aircraft carriers are more robust to cope with the stresses of catapult launches and arrested landings.
Most carrier aircraft have a good reputation for being strong and include the F-4, A-4, Hellcat, etc. Besides the fatigue issues in later life (land based), the Bucc was indeed known as a robust aircraft.
Some aircraft later served in roles that they were not inteded to serve, such as most of the cold war fleet going to low altitude penetration and later suffering fatigue issues or limitations (Valiant, B-52, etc).
I have some knowledge of the H-60 airframe, and can atest it is a robust airframe, mostly because of the initial design requirements for a battlefield helicopter. Other civil helicopters of similar size may have less stringent requirements. I know which one I would want to be in a rollover or crash.
A common rule of thumb is many modern aircraft are designed for a certain load limit, and then a 150% failure limit is built into the design. That is the structure can survive 150% of the normally anticipated highest load limit it will see in normal service. Structures, or even whole aircraft, can then be tested, and if they fail before that point, it may be time to go back to the drawing board. Some more weel-knowm examples include the the C-17 and C-5 that suffered wing issues and needed to be re-worked, and the C-133 and Comet suffered fuselage cracking.
WWII provided some great examples of different design philiopshies. The Japanese Zero was designed for optimum range an manueverabilty, but did so by sacrificing armor protection and had a less robust structure. The Hellcat was designed to take a beating, and did so by having a beefier structure- which had a weight penalty.
Manufactures use a a variety of materials to meet weight, cost and strength requirements. Through history we have seen different materials introduced to meet ever increrasing requirements: wood and fabic was replaced/augmented by aluminum, then alloys, tintaium, composites etc. Titanium is a great example as it was lighter and stonger than earlier material, and had better heat properties, but was quite expensive- it is all a trade off.
Some manufactures had or have a reputation for strong aircraft. Grumman was known as the "iron works" for good reason. They built strong aircraft, and needed to as most were intened for naval use.
The B-17 had a good reputation for taking damage. It was well built. Many bush planes are quite robust.