KJ, the FAA may have changed the rules since I retired, but the test requirement in the advisory circular accompanying Part 29 used to require flight test at a stable point at 1.11 times the twin engine Vne. Losing parts would be considered bad form.
I’d imagine the Part 27 Advisory Circular reflects the same requirement.

212 is correct ( as usual ). It winds up being a dive. Set max power in level flight then push the nose over and fly to the desired speed, take data and then recover back to whatever comes next on the flight test card for that flight. 76 was 185 and 92 was somewhere in that ballpark-just don’t recall the number.

Military qual ( US ) is a bit different. Typically the Vne is selected as a percentage of the design weight Vh ( level flight max speed at design gross weight ), and thus it too, is a dive point ( thus similar in thinking to the 1.11 FAA point ). The difference is that the military qual requires maneuver data at that point, to include a pullout. Thus the UH-60 at design weight did 2.8 G at 193 KIAS, as well as a maneuver called a “ Dynamic Yaw “, which is described as follows: set up the Vne ( sometimes referred to as Vdive ) then apply pedal in one direction to the max steady state sideslip angle, and upon reaching that, apply full pedal at max rate in the opposite direction to achieve the transient overswing sideslip angle*. Those two numbers for the UH-60 were 15 and 30 degrees. If you ever noticed the small bayonet type device on the leading edge of the 60 door, about half-way up the window, it is there because when we did this maneuver to get the left overswing angle data point, the left door would pop open with a very loud bang, and accompanying air racket, and the pilot sitting in that seat didn’t much care for it.
*obviously this requires some judicious buildup, so this maneuver ( to be accomplished separately in both directions ) winds up being done a couple of times.

SAS, you are correct, but while I flew with Nick Lappos for a lot of the 76A development, I switched back to S-70 projects immediately thereafter. Nick will ( I trust ) correct my recollection of the 76A Vne point, which is that it was controlled not by structural considerations, blade stall, vibration, nor tip mach number or power, but by the fact that beyond the 156 ( 155? ) speed we could not demonstrate the classic fixed wing longitudinal static stability stick position slope. It was pretty flat. So we left it there.
And yes, you are right, the ship had additional level flight speed which was left on the table, so to speak.

Hello John Eacott. Sorry, but do not recall who that might have been. When Nick reads this thread, he’ll surely remember. As to the above Vne flight in the 76, there was some speed record flying done by Nick and friends. I have to retell one neat story here. The FAI rules for speed records provide for keeping the ship within a small altitude band. For one of the records, Bill Kramer flew the ship and was precise enough to enter the run at precisely the upper altitude limit and gradually lost altitude during the run, so as to exit the run at the lower limit, using therefore 100% of the potential energy transfer legally possible. Bill was an ex USAF 53 aviator who was also pretty good with cars. One weekend day he and Nick were scheduled to leave Sikorsky with a 76 for some NBAA event or such. Nick was waiting on our flight field with Gerry Tobias, who was the CEO and the person who had sold the 76 project to UTC leadership, and thus had really personal interest in seeing the 76 succeed. Kramer was late and then appeared driving his car across the flight field at rather too high a speed, going by Tobias and Nick, putting the car into a four wheel drift and perfectly stopping in his parking spot. Tobias turns to Nick and says, “ Nick, is he flying the 76? “. I wasn’t there, so this is another thing that Nick can clear up more factually.