A noisy, drafty, fuel guzzler that didn't handle all that well and isn't actually all that quick anymore. For pure pose value, perhaps, but how many spend $ on that. Oh wait... you own a Questar.
I don't disagree the Q3.5 is a work of art, but its one that dates from the pre-digital age. Ostensibly perfect optics in an undeniably pretty OTA and mount, but stuck with antiquated eyepieces, synchronous motor in RA, manual dec, no stepping motors, no GOTO, no capability for an autoguider, no encoders, no GPS... Great loungeroom ornament and a perfect travel scope for a solar eclipse, I agree.
I used an astro version of a Q7 side by side with my SW 180mm f/15 and optically they are indistinguishable if you use the same eyepiece in both. Both took an hour to cool down. Diffraction patterns on bright stars, detail and contrast on Jupiter and the moon etc indistinguishable. Even the secondary obstruction ratio is very similar. Questar can't beat the physics of resolution and diffraction any more than any other manufacturer, if the optics are good. Maybe my SW mak is better than average, though I have no way to test that.
If anything, image quality in a Q7 suffers in average to poor seeing in circumstances where a Q3.5 doesn't.
There's nothing mythical about Questar beyond very good engineering.