I have had this question in my mind for quite some time. Technicaly, the skymaster is a twin engined aircraft, but it does not handle like any normal twin, to the point its like flying a 172 but a bit faster and a bit more heavy on the controls. Because of this, do airlines look at skymaster as a subcategory and not actual twin engine time, since the skymaster does not have the critical engine issue and stuff normal twins have? or does an aircraft with two engines automaticaly count as twin engine time?

I got the pleasure of flying a 337 on the left seat and it is a very sweet plane, albeit a bit odd to land since you can't flare that much, and to taxi you need to use the rear engine. I also noticed the plane practicaly flies itself. I had to add very little trim, maybe only when I decreased power on the approach and add power on takeoff but that is it, it was almost like using autopilot. The plane flies like a dream and in steep turns, it is easy to keep the bubble on the center. For some reason easier than in a 172.

Anyone else flown a 337 and can answer my question?

I had looked into purchasing a 337 while shopping for my bonanza. I asked the same questions and got what seemed to be a very logical answer.
I was told that if you do your Multi training in a CLT (center line thrust I believe they define it) then you are not checked out to fly a traditional twin. and you must log your time as such... However, if you get your Multi rating in a standard twin, then you can fly the CLT models, and it's just multi engine time in your log book.
So It may skirt the flavor of the rule for having multi engine time, but as long as you are checked out in a regular twin, then its good to go.
I decided the somewhat slow speeds for the fuel burn and additional engine upkeep and expense wasn't the right fit for my mission. I finally found a the Bonanza that fit my needs, and moved away from the 337 idea.
Just like with most things... there seem to be a lot of "old wives's tales" about the 337. I found however when you speak to the people that actually own them, they really aren't all the bad things people try to claim that they are.
It seems in life that there are things people have made up their own minds about, and they will do everything in their power to convince you to come to the same conclusion. It is a quest for validating their decision.
A perfect example is all the guys from my Cherokee group who are "afraid' of the maintenance cost of a retractable (read Arrow). They tried to tell me how sorry I'd be for buying my arrow. Then when I was shopping for the Bo, they again tried to tell me how horrible it would be.
They were WRONG!!! (on both accounts)
It seems that people's $0.02 worth has not been adjusted for inflation, and it's' still worth just as little.

I owned a 337 for 3 years and flew it 500 hours.
All of the time counts for Multi time is you have a ME rating without the clt limitation.

Those hours allowed me to get reasonable insurance when I got my BE-55 two years ago.

Skymasters seem to come in two catagories, Real good or Real bad.
I happened to have a good one and alot of people do not know 1750 of useful load and 7 and half hours of range.

I still like my Baron alot more!!!!

Rick Galvin
BE-55
Based GAI(adiz)berg

I definetaly think the baron is an overall better plane for some types of missions, but for ones like missionary flying and mountain flying, the 336 is the king. Its a 337 but with fixed gear. Even though its got the propeller in the back, and you need to watch out for rocks, its just like flying a 172 but with two engine reliability. Just as strong and rugged.

Ofcourse if I had the money, I would just buy myself an angel...

and have best of both worlds

The angel is an icredible flying machine. But it is too expensive for a plane that is not pressurized and preety slow. Although it was not built for speed nor high altitude flight. With $600,000 I could buy a couple 206s or a super nice colemill baron 58.