Well, whether armies or fleets are more useful has been discussed before, for example at
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24103#p339804Generally speaking, the focus has been either on the typical winning ratio of armies/fleets for each country or on the number of spaces that are more useful when occupied by fleets than by armies. Now some of the strongest arguments for fleets (control of North Sea, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, English Channel) are too far removed from Turkey's typical sphere of influence to merit consideration. As for typical winning ratios, Austria is the land king hands down with typical ratios around 70-75% armies whereas England, the sea king, usually runs 50-55 percent. Turkey needs at most 7 fleets to solo—6 to conquer the Med and 1 to ferry troops across the Black Sea. So a solo-imminent Turkey will have at most a 9-7 army-fleet ratio.
For an early Turkey, he must either choose between 75% armies or 50% armies. Neither falls into his "ideal" band.
I have no figures on how often a Turkey who solos builds an army or a fleet first. I imagine that many successful Turkeys get two builds the first year perhaps by opening to the Black Sea & Ankara, by getting support into Rumania against a napping Russia, or by beating Austria into Greece/Serbia when Austria has either opened the Southern Hedgehog or is facing the Obriani Attack.