Inertial-type flowmeters are rangeability-limited. Orifice plates, pitot tubes, all read a signal that varies with the square of the velocity. So a 100:1 signal only gives you 10:1 rangeability.
Vortex meters read frequency proportional to velocity so they have inherently greater rangeability. You are looking for 22:1, and that would be easy to do in a vortex meter. If your application has too much DP at max flow for the 1" meter, go to a 1 1/2" meter section. Follow or exceed manufacturer's suggestion for straight pipe runs upstream and downstream, just as you would with an orifice.
Coriolis meters are also inherently proprtional to flow, and it IS a true Mass-flow measurement but measuring a gas you are looking at such a tiny signal that it can get swamped by line vibration. Also they are expensive. Much better signal-to-noise ratio with liquids because they are denser.
Turbines, paddle wheels, etc. have mechanical bearings that may be damaged by an overspeed or just by accumulated time. Cheap, but not as durable, accurate, or stable. Also these work beter on liquids because the liquids can both lubricate and pressure-balance the bearings.
Positive displacement meters are accurate*, but they also have bearings. *accuracy is relative to a particular pressure and temperature, so you wind up having to use additional compensation instrumentation to compensate. PD meters work much better on liquids for that reason. Also, if somebody opens a valve downstream of a PD meter and it loses its backpressure, it can overspeed and be junked in a New York Second.
Hot Wire anemometer is promising for your application. The amount of heat pulled off the hot wire is proportional to the mass flow rate. As long as the service is clean and there is nothing in it to foul the wire, it would be a practical choice.
I still think I'd use the vortex meter.
