Yes, and a lot of the observers with big scopes who live in more favorable climates seemingly cannot possibly comprehend how it is to live in a challenging one. Quite a lot of my observing are unplanned, surprise half-hour to one-hour sessions between showers or low-pressure fronts. Under such conditions, the small refractor reigns supreme and allows me to get the best of the preciously few available photons. Some large-scope observers have even told me, that they would give up and find another hobby, if they were forced to live where I do. Yeah, but I didn't give up, I just found the best tool for the job and try to make the best of it.
I, too, live on an island surrounded by ocean, so our observing conditions must be the same.
People have reviewed why a refractor might perform better than a Cat. Yes, inch for inch, a refractor is better. Yes, the refractors cool better, and aren't as affected by temperature changes. Yes, refractors lack a central obstruction. Yes, there are a lot of bad SCTs out there (though those times are supposed to be far in the past).
What constitutes "bad?" My 1982 vintage, orange C8 had maybe two nights total of reaching 250x on planets. No, it didn't do all that well when pushed higher. Is that bad? I give it a "meh minus." An 80mm Pentax refractor (your basic f11 achromat) produced nice, crisp, clean images of up to 200x most of the time. So did a defective Vixen 4" achromat. I have had Newtonians perform very well indeed. I have looked at planets through many other SCTs, but they never impressed.
Then there is my 7" Cat., a Maksutov that has spent a few nights over 500x. Good optics coupled with the usual cheap mechanics. Yet even at lover magnifications the images it produces pop, much like a refractor.
So what is it about SCTs? It's not the cooling (this is Hawaii, after all), and probably not the central obstruction (it's 5% more than my Maksutov). The conditions are good here, and they still lag as a group. Yes, there may be bad ones, but why are there so few that perform well out here. I suspect it's something about the design that makes great performances close to impossible. Either the design itself limits performance, much like a short focus achromat struggling to reach high magnifications, or it's a very fussy design that is hard to execute well.
I have owned around 60 SCT's and have some of the best seeing one could hope for in FL on the gulf coast. Most gave lack luster views at best. Four of them were very good and one black 1984 C8 was insane sharp and could do 450x+ on my best nites. As for the others like a Orange C14 i had they offered up mushy views of the planets compared to my well made Newts. No cooling problems in my area as i never bother with high power work on nites with falling temps and most nites it can still be 86 at 10pm in the summer.
SCT's are just hit miss. One can be freaky good while another is a total mush dog. I think the hit and miss was the worst with the orange C8's and Meades from the 80's. But at the price you pay for a SCT ya just can't expect Zambuto like optics.