In my opinion, it is very difficult to dimension a contoured part like this once it gets past a certain degree of complexity. I would recommend starting with views/cross-sections that actually mimic how it was drawn it CAD.
For example, if the long sections are a sweep then you could do a cross section of one of them and dimension the swept profile. (I haven't had time to open it and look at how it's been created.)
However, if you've gotten into lofts or boundary features then it gets more difficult to dimension on a 2D print. And then, if you've added draft to some sections then you're in for a LOT of section views or notes calling out draft and direction.
In these more difficult situations, we have a note we add to the print stating that the 3D solid data is to be used to create the tool for the part and the drawing will call out inspection dimensions and other critical data like texture and material. I know this doesn't really apply to your question but I thought it may help to see how the industry handles complex parts.
Victor Orrego wrote:
...What is the best way to generate 2d drawings, so that someone can read and can make a good replica of this piece?
Luckily in the modern world it isn't really necessary. Give your solid/surface model (the one you are making the 2D print from) to whoever needs it. Send an exported STEP, Parasolid, IGS or other format.
But to answer your question do a Google image search on airfoil or wing blueprint.
The world was making very complex airfoils long before 3D solid modeling. It was done using a series of equally spaced cross sections. Sometimes in 2 different directions. It was up to the manufacturers to fill in the space between the sections. Think French Curve.