It is far easier to hyperinflate in a small country, or at least one that has a highly concentrated population.
The main examples of hyperinflation that I am aware of are 1920's Germany, modern Zimbabwe, and countries in South America in the 1970's.
There was also at least one hyperinflation in the U.S. colonies in the late 1700's, but I will point out that at that time, the U.S. was a very small country concentrated on the upper east coast of what is the modern U.S., in what is called New England, and the states there are mostly quite small by the standards of the ones that came later.
There was also a hyperinflation in the Confederacy during the Civil War - but again, the country was not yet nearly as large as it is today in terms of population and especially in terms of population spread. In fact, the Confederacy was limited to what is today the southeastern United States. The western half of what is today the United States did not start to become populated in a major way, and for the most part not even in a significant way, until some years after the end of the Civil War.
The modern U.S. has a situation exactly opposite to that which would be conducive to a hyperinflation - it is a very large country, one of the largest in the world, with a large population (over 300 million people) spread throughout the country. The U.S. has both large and small cities spread pretty much throughout the entire country.
Germany, on the other hand, is a very small country (as are all countries in Europe by U.S. standards). I should know, my family is from there and I have been there several times over the years to visit - and I have driven pretty much all over the country. Just to give you an example of how small the country is - it takes about a day to drive from Hamburg (in the north) to Munich (in the south).
Germany has a large (for its size) population and both large and small cities spread pretty much throughout the entire country - but the country itself is tiny compared to the U.S., and although it was somewhat larger before it lost territory in W.W.II, it was small enough in the 1920's to be conducive to generating a hyperinflation.
Modern Zimbabwe is also certainly small enough to be conducive to generating a hyperinflation. Its size is on the same order of magnitude as Germany.
As for South America, the countries there are also of the same order of magnitude in size as Germany and Zimbabwe - easily noted visually that way on a world map or globe - or in the case of Chile (which is actually small, too - just long and narrow) or Argentina, have populations that are concentrated heavily in just a few cities or even just one major one. And although Brazil is much larger, it also has the situation of having the main part of its population concentrated in just a few main cities (much of its territory is not populated). So I can easily see why hyperinflations happened in South America in those countries where it did.
The issue is distribution of money. In the past, and in unsophisticated economies even now, that was/is done only with paper money - which means (only) a printing press, then passing the money on to the people. That is far more easily done if the money does not have to be distributed far and wide. Simply put, in a country the size of the modern United States - and especially with the far-and-wide distribution of cities in America - that is impractical.
Yes, the money can be distributed electronically (to bank accounts) in modern economies that use computer systems - and, in fact, that, or simply by lowering tax withholding in the paycheck, is how it is done when the government in a modern economy wants to distribute cash directly to the people. But, for example in America, the government and Fed are careful not to do too much depositing of money into bank accounts (lowering of tax withholding can't be done to a great extent per person anyway, the withholding per person is not that high in the first place) because the most basic issue in modern central banking is don't flood the economy with cash - avoid a hyperinflation! So the authorities are perfectly content to have most new money in the economy start out as borrowed money from the banks (the authorities put electronic money in the back of the banks and then the banks are expected to lend it out).
And that is why, for example, when the U.S. government wanted to provide some cash to people during the downturn a couple of years ago, it did so for most people by having the I.R.S. deposit it in people's bank accounts using the auto-deposit information they provided on their tax return for getting their tax refund.