Added new footprint: TO-220-11_Horizontal_TabDown_StaggeredType1_Py5.08mm

[jeremysiebers]

Added new footprint: TO-220-11_Horizontal_TabDown_StaggeredType1_Py5.08mm

Added new variant of Added new footprint: TO-220-11_Horizontal_TabDown_StaggeredType1_Py2.54mm --> 5.08mm

---

Thanks for creating a pull request to contribute to the KiCad libraries! To speed up integration of your PR, please check the following items:

• Provide a URL to a datasheet for the footprint(s) you are contributing
• An example screenshot image is very helpful
• If there are matching symbol or 3D model pull requests, provide link(s) as appropriate
• Check the output of the Travis automated check scripts - fix any errors as required

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[poeschlr]

Sadly the staggered packages still follow the old naming convention. Could you aling yours to the new one?
http://kicad-pcb.org/libraries/klc/F3.5/

So the name should be: TO-220-11_[body size]mm_P3.4x5.08mm_StaggerOdd_TabDown

Edit: we might also want to include the lead length (body to pin 1) in the name
So it would then be TO-220-11_[body size]mm_P3.4x5.08mm_StaggerOdd_Lead[lead length]mm_TabDown

(I will look at the other ones and get them to the new clearer convention.)

[jeremysiebers]

• So it would then be TO-220-11_[body size]mm_P3.4x5.08mm_StaggerOdd_Lead[lead length]mm_Tab-Down

[poeschlr]

In your latest screenshot it looks like the courtyard outline is not closed. Could you fix that?

Also is the body size really 20.02? (I already checked some other TO-220-11 footprints and got 20.2 as body size: 18.6 - (-1.6) = 20.2)

[jeremysiebers]

Hi Rene,

I'm using the LMD18200 datasheet becuase that is the device I'm using in my design at the moment.
In this datasheet http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lmd18200.pdf it is 20.02 +/- 0.25.
But since this is an old device I'll change the width to 20.2mm so that it can accomodate all other devices as well (the drawing itself is 20.2).

• In your latest screenshot it looks like the courtyard outline is not closed. Could you fix that?

[jkriege2]

A comment on the body size: Does this really make sense for such standardized packages? All TO-220 have more or less a size, fully determined by the TO-220-11 ...

Or should we also add these sizes for SOT-23, TO-92, TO-18, ...???

Best,
JAN

[poeschlr]

The footprint name should always reflect the footprint measurements. So if you want the footprint specialized for your part it is ok to change it to have a body width of 20.02.
That would require you to change the fab, silk and courtyard outlines to reflect that.

[poeschlr]

@jkriege2 good point. To be honest i would have only included it for consistency with the rest of our lib.

[jkriege2]

I think it really does not make too much sense ... I think everybody knows what to expect from TO-220 or TO-247 ... In addition, the very same package will have different sizes, depending on whether it's mounted vertically or horizontally? I would be confused by that size. + The exanple given for the KLC rule also does not have the package size and the size is explicitly an OPTIONAL parameter!

[poeschlr]

Ok then in that case, i would agree not to include the body size. (Has the benefit that i will have less work for adapting the other footprint names)

[poeschlr]

@jeremysiebers could you remove the dash in TabDown? (That way it would align with how other similar footprints are currently named resulting in less work when we fix up the naming convention in this lib. And yes i need to change that in the pictures used on the KLC site.)

[jeremysiebers]

No problem.

• removed the dash in TabDown

[poeschlr]

Thanks for this contribution